Cited by 153Ethics and Social Impacts of AILaw, AI, and Intellectual PropertyDigitalization, Law, and Regulation

Correction to: Excavating AI: the politics of images in machine learning training sets

Open access
Crawford, Kate, Paglen, Trevor·2021·AI & SOCIETY

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00146-021-01301-1

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Crawford, K., & Paglen, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • University of Georgia (US)
Corresponding author
Crawford, Kate
Venue
AI & SOCIETY
Published
2021-11-23
Volume
36
Issue
4
Pages
1399-1399
ISSN
  • 0951-5666 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-5655
OpenAlex
W3217570815
Cited by
153
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 48 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 3
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
AI & Society (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Law, AI, and Intellectual Property
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
Keywords
artificial intelligence, machine learning training data, image politics, data curation

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