Genus och representation : studier av social bias i språkteknologi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 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 teacher head, 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".