Crowdsource, Crawl, or Generate? Creating SEA-VL, a Multicultural Vision-Language Dataset for Southeast Asia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite Southeast Asia's (SEA) extraordinary linguistic and cultural diversity, the region remains significantly underrepresented in vision-language (VL) research, resulting in AI models that inadequately capture SEA cultural nuances. To fill this gap, we present SEA-VL, an open-source initiative dedicated to developing culturally relevant high-quality datasets for SEA languages. By involving contributors from SEA countries, SEA-VL ensures better cultural relevance and diversity, fostering greater inclusivity of underrepresented languages and cultural depictions in VL research. Our methodology employed three approaches: community-driven crowdsourcing with SEA contributors, automated image crawling, and synthetic image generation. We evaluated each method's effectiveness in capturing cultural relevance. We found that image crawling achieves approximately ~85% cultural relevance while being more cost- and time-efficient than crowdsourcing, whereas synthetic image generation failed to accurately reflect SEA cultural nuances and contexts. Collectively, we gathered 1.28 million SEA culturally relevant images, more than 50 times larger than other existing datasets. This work bridges the representation gap in SEA, establishes a foundation for developing culturally aware AI systems for this region, and provides a replicable framework for addressing representation gaps in other underrepresented regions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".