An Empirical Study on the Impact of Gender Diversity on Code Quality in AI Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid advancement of AI systems necessitates high-quality, sustainable code to ensure reliability and mitigate risks such as bias and technical debt. However, the underrepresentation of women in software engineering raises concerns about homogeneity in AI development. Studying gender diversity in AI systems is crucial, as diverse perspectives are essential for improving system robustness, reducing bias, and enhancing overall code quality. While prior research has demonstrated the benefits of diversity in general software teams, its specific impact on the code quality of AI systems remains unexplored. This study addresses this gap by examining how gender diversity within AI teams influences project popularity, code quality, and individual contributions. Our study makes three key contributions. First, we analyzed the relationship between team diversity and repository popularity, revealing that diverse AI repositories not only differ significantly from non-diverse ones but also achieve higher popularity and greater community engagement. Second, we explored the effect of diversity on the overall code quality of AI systems and found that diverse repositories tend to have superior code quality compared to non-diverse ones. Finally, our analysis of individual contributions revealed that although female contributors contribute to a smaller proportion of the total code, their contributions demonstrate consistently higher quality than those of their male counterparts. These findings highlight the need to remove barriers to female participation in AI development, as greater diversity can improve the overall quality of AI systems.
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 | 0.012 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".