MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7056829330

Genus och representation : studier av social bias i språkteknologi

2024· article· en· W7056829330 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDiVA at Umeå University (Umeå University) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAtomic Energy of Canada Limited
KeywordsRepresentation (politics)Class (philosophy)ReplicatePower (physics)Social mediaMachine translationNatural (archaeology)Language evolution
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natural Language Processing (NLP) technologies are a part of our every day realities. They come in forms we can easily see as ‘language technologies’ (auto-correct, translation services, search results) as well as those that fly under our radar (social media algorithms, 'suggested reading' recommendations on news sites, spam filters). NLP fuels many other tools under the Artificial Intelligence umbrella – such as algorithms approving for loan applications – which can have major material effects on our lives. As large language models like ChatGPT have become popularized, we are also increasingly exposed to machine-generated texts. Machine Learning (ML) methods, which most modern NLP tools rely on, replicate patterns in their training data. Typically, these language data are generated by humans, and contain both overt and underlying patterns that we consider socially undesirable, comprising stereotypes and other reflections of human prejudice. Such patterns (often termed 'bias') are picked up and repeated, or even made more extreme, by ML systems. Thus, NLP technologies become a part of the linguistic landscapes in which we humans transmit stereotypes and act on our prejudices. They may participate in this transmission by, for example, translating nurses as women (and doctors as men) or systematically preferring to suggest promoting men over women. These technologies are tools in the construction of power asymmetries not only through the reinforcement of hegemony, but also through the distribution of material resources when they are included in decision-making processes such as screening job applications. This thesis explores gendered biases, trans and nonbinary inclusion, and queer representation within NLP through a feminist and intersectional lens. Three key areas are investigated: the ways in which “gender” is theorized and operationalized by researchers investigating gender bias in NLP; gendered associations within datasets used for training language technologies; and the representation of queer (particularly trans and nonbinary) identities in the output of both low-level NLP models and large language models (LLMs). The findings indicate that nonbinary people/genders are erased by both bias in NLP tools/datasets, and by research/ers attempting to address gender biases. Men and women are also held to cisheteronormative standards (and stereotypes), which is particularly problematic when considering the intersection of gender and sexuality. Although it is possible to mitigate some of these issues in particular circumstances, such as addressing erasure by adding more examples of nonbinary language to training data, the complex nature of the socio-technical landscape which NLP technologies are a part of means that simple fixes may not always be sufficient. Additionally, it is important that ways of measuring and mitigating 'bias' remain flexible, as our understandings of social categories, stereotypes and other undesirable norms, and 'bias' itself will shift across contexts such as time and linguistic setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiVA at Umeå University (Umeå University)Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207