CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 83

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Conservative AI and social inequality: conceptualizing alternatives to bias through social theory

Zajko, Mike·2021·AI & SOCIETY
DOI 10.1007/s00146-021-01153-9
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00146-021-01153-9

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. Barrett LF, Adolphs R, Marsella S et al (2019) Emotional expressions reconsidered: challenges to inferring emotion from human facial movements. Psychol Sci Public Interest 20:1–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100619832930 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Baumann E, Rumberger JL (2018) State of the Art in Fair ML: From Moral Philosophy and Legislation to Fair Classifiers. ArXiv181109539 Cs Stat http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.09539 · arXiv
  3. Benjamin R (2019) Race after technology: abolitionist tools for the new Jim code. Polity Press, Cambridge, U.K.
  4. Blackstock C (2017) Reflections on reconciliation after 150 years since confederation: an interview with Dr Cindy Blackstock. Ott Law Rev 49:13–28
  5. Bourke R (2018) What is conservatism? History, ideology and party. Eur J Polit Theory 17:449–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885118782384 · DOI
  6. Browne S (2015) Dark matters: on the surveillance of blackness. Duke University Press, Durham · DOI
  7. Cooley M (1995) The myth of the moral neutrality of technology. AI Soc 9:10–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01174475 · DOI
  8. Corbett-Davies S, Goel S (2018). The measure and mismeasure of fairness: a critical review of fair machine learning. ArXiv1808.00023 Cs http://arxiv.org/abs/1808.00023 · arXiv
  9. Costanza-Chock S (2020) Design justice: community-led practices to build the worlds we need. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA · DOI
  10. Eubanks V (2017) Automating inequality: how high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press, New York
  11. Goetz B (1997) Organization as class bias in local law enforcement: arson-for-profit as a “nonissue.” Law Soc Rev 31:557–588 · DOI
  12. Green B (2018) Data science as political action: grounding data science in a politics of justice. ArXiv181103435 Cs https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.03435 · arXiv
  13. Green B (2019) “Good” isn’t good enough. In: proceedings of the AI for Social Good workshop at NeurIPS. Vancouver. https://www.benzevgreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/19-ai4sg.pdf. Accessed 29 December 2020
  14. Green B, Viljoen S (2020) Algorithmic realism: expanding the boundaries of algorithmic thought. In: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. Association for Computing Machinery, Barcelona, Spain 19–31 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Grusky DB (2014) Social stratification: class, race, and gender in sociological perspective, 4th edn. Routledge, New York
  16. Hacker P (2018) Teaching fairness to artificial intelligence: existing and novel strategies against algorithmic discrimination under EU law. Common Mark Law Rev 55:1143–1185 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Hacking I (2005) Why Race Still Matters. Daedalus 134:102–116 · DOI
  18. Hoffman SG (2017) Managing ambiguities at the edge of knowledge: research strategy and artificial intelligence labs in an era of academic capitalism. Sci Technol Hum Values 42:703–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243916687038 · DOI
  19. Iliadis A, Russo F (2016) Critical data studies: an introduction. Big Data Soc 3:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716674238 · DOI
  20. Johnson K (2020a) NeurIPS requires AI researchers to account for societal impact and financial conflicts of interest. VentureBeat. https://venturebeat.com/2020/02/24/neurips-requires-ai-researchers-to-account-for-societal-impact-and-financial-conflicts-of-interest/. Accessed 29 Dec 2020
  21. Johnson K, Pasquale F, Chapman J (2019) Artificial intelligence, machine learning, and bias in finance: toward responsible innovation. Fordham Rev 88:499–529
  22. Kusner MJ, Loftus JR (2020) The long road to fairer algorithms. Nature 578:34–36. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00274-3 · DOI
  23. Leith P (1990) Formalism in AI and computer science. Ellis Horwood, New York
  24. Lentin A (2020) Why race still matters. Polity Press, Cambridge
  25. Lepri B, Oliver N, Letouzé E et al (2018) Fair, transparent, and accountable algorithmic decision-making processes. Philos Technol 31:611–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0279-x · DOI · Paper page
  26. Lukes S (2005) Power: a radical view, 2nd edn. Red Globe Press, London · DOI
  27. Lury C (2018) Introduction: Activating the present of interdisciplinary methods. In: Lury C, Fensham R, Heller-Nicholas A et al (eds) Routledge handbook of interdisciplinary research methods. Routledge, New York, pp 1–25 · DOI
  28. Machin A, Stehr N (2016) Inequality in Modern Societies: Causes, Consequences and Challenges. In: Stehr N (ed) Machin A. Understanding Inequality, Social Costs and Benefits. Springer, pp 3–34
  29. Mills CW (1997) The racial contract. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY
  30. Mohamed S, Png M-T, Isaac W (2020) Decolonial AI: decolonial theory as sociotechnical foresight in artificial intelligence. Philos Technol 33:659–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00405-8 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Nath R, Sahu V (2020) The problem of machine ethics in artificial intelligence. AI Soc 35:103–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-017-0768-6 · DOI
  32. Nisbet RA (1952) Conservatism and sociology. Am J Sociol 58:167–175 · DOI
  33. O’Neil C (2016) Weapons of math destruction: how big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown, New York
  34. Omi M, Winant H (2014) Racial Formation in the United States, 3rd edn. Routledge, New York · DOI · Paper page
  35. Roberge J, Castelle M (eds) (2021) The cultural life of machine learning: an incursion into critical AI studies. Springer International Publishing, Cham
  36. Robinson CJ (2000) Black marxism: the making of the black radical tradition, 2nd edn. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill
  37. Rosanvallon P (2013) The society of equals. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts · DOI
  38. Segall S (2013) Equality and opportunity. Oxford University Press, Oxford · DOI
  39. Selbst AD, boyd d, Friedler SA, et al (2019) Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. In: proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. ACM, New York 59–68 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Shah R, Gundotra N, Abbeel P, Dragan AD (2019b) On the feasibility of learning, rather than assuming, human biases for reward inference. ArXiv190609624 Cs https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.09624 · arXiv
  41. Simpson LB (2016) Indigenous resurgence and co-resistance. Crit Ethn Stud 2:19–34. https://doi.org/10.5749/jcritethnstud.2.2.0019 · DOI
  42. Suresh H, Guttag JV (2020) A Framework for Understanding Unintended Consequences of Machine Learning. ArXiv190110002 Cs http://arxiv.org/abs/1901.10002 · arXiv
  43. Veracini L (2010) Settler colonialism: a theoretical overview. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, Basingstoke · DOI · Paper page
  44. Walter M, Kukutai T, Carroll SR, Rodriguez-Lonebear D (eds) (2020) Indigenous data sovereignty and policy. Routledge, London
  45. Walton S (2020) Why the critical race theory concept of ‘White supremacy’ should not be dismissed by neo-Marxists: lessons from contemporary Black radicalism. Power Educ 12:78–94 · DOI
  46. Winner L (1980) Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus 109:121–136
  47. Wolfe AB (1923) Conservatism and radicalism: some definitions and distinctions. Sci Mon 17:229–237
  48. Wong P-H (2020) Democratizing algorithmic fairness. Philos Technol 33:225–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-019-00355-w · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Zajko, M.
Venue
AI & SOCIETY
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-02-07
Volume
36
Issue
3
Pages
1047-1056
ISSN
  • 0951-5666
  • 1435-5655
DOI
10.1007/s00146-021-01153-9
Cited by
83
References
14
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review