Towards a Non-Ideal Methodological Framework for Responsible ML
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Though ML practitioners increasingly employ various Responsible ML (RML) strategies, their methodological approach in practice is still unclear. In particular, the constraints, assumptions, and choices of practitioners with technical duties–such as developers, engineers, and data scientists—are often implicit, subtle, and under-scrutinized in HCI and related fields. We interviewed 22 technically oriented ML practitioners across seven domains to understand the characteristics of their methodological approaches to RML through the lens of ideal and non-ideal theorizing of fairness. We find that practitioners’ methodological approaches fall along a spectrum of idealization. While they structured their approaches through ideal theorizing, such as by abstracting RML workflow from the inquiry of applicability of ML, they did not systematically document nor pay deliberate attention to their non-ideal approaches, such as diagnosing imperfect conditions. We end our paper with a discussion of a new methodological approach, inspired by elements of non-ideal theory, to structure technical practitioners’ RML process and facilitate collaboration with other stakeholders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.299 | 0.202 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.091 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".