Culture is Everywhere: A Call for Intentionally Cultural Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevailing "trivia-centered paradigm" for evaluating the cultural alignment of large language models (LLMs) is increasingly inadequate as these models become more advanced and widely deployed. Existing approaches typically reduce culture to static facts or values, testing models via multiple-choice or short-answer questions that treat culture as isolated trivia. Such methods neglect the pluralistic and interactive realities of culture, and overlook how cultural assumptions permeate even ostensibly "neutral" evaluation settings. In this position paper, we argue for \textbf{intentionally cultural evaluation}: an approach that systematically examines the cultural assumptions embedded in all aspects of evaluation, not just in explicitly cultural tasks. We systematically characterize the what, how, and circumstances by which culturally contingent considerations arise in evaluation, and emphasize the importance of researcher positionality for fostering inclusive, culturally aligned NLP research. Finally, we discuss implications and future directions for moving beyond current benchmarking practices, discovering important applications that we don't know exist, and involving communities in evaluation design through HCI-inspired participatory methodologies.
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 | 0.267 | 0.290 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.081 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.035 | 0.050 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".