Cited by 5Recommender Systems and TechniquesEthics and Social Impacts of AIExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

A bias detection tree approach for detecting disparities in a recommendation model’s errors

Open access
Misztal-Radecka, Joanna, Indurkhya, Bipin·2023·User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11257-022-09334-x

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Misztal-Radecka, J., & Indurkhya, B.
Affiliations
Jagiellonian University (PL)
Corresponding author
  • Misztal-Radecka, Joanna
  • Indurkhya, Bipin
Venue
User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction
Published
2022-07-11
Volume
33
Issue
1
Pages
43-79
ISSN
  • 0924-1868 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1391
OpenAlex
W4285043475
Cited by
4
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2
FWCI
0.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction (publishedVersion)
  • Homo Politicus (Academy of Humanities and Economics in Lodz) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Ministerstwo Edukacji i Nauki (Industrial PhD program (AGH University of Science and Technology))
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
bias detection, recommender systems, algorithmic fairness, protected characteristics, collaborative filtering, disparate treatment

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