MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7143899963 · doi:10.71465/ajdsa906

Understanding Data Bias: Challenges and Solutions in Data Science

2020· article· W7143899963 on OpenAlexaff
Dr. Michael Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Data Science and Analysis · 2020
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData collectionNoisy dataBig dataData analysisData modeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data bias is a critical issue in data science, as it can lead to inaccurate, unfair, and discriminatory outcomes in machine learning models and data-driven decisions. Data bias can arise from various sources, including biased training data, flawed data collection methods, and systemic inequalities. This article explores the types of data bias, the challenges they present, and the potential solutions for addressing them. It also discusses the importance of ethical considerations and fairness in data science practices to ensure that machine learning models are transparent, equitable, and trustworthy

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)0.461
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.710
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.4610.710
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.012
Science and technology studies0.0090.066
Scholarly communication0.0240.043
Open science0.0080.020
Research integrity0.0200.030
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.868
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.348 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Data Science and AnalysisSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207