Cited by 26Ethics and Social Impacts of AIEnvironmental Justice and Health DisparitiesEnergy and Environment Impacts

Addressing machine learning bias to foster energy justice

Open access
Chen, Chien-fei, Napolitano, Rebecca, Hu, Yuqing, Kar, Bandana, Yao, Bing·2024·Energy Research & Social Science

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.erss.2024.103653

Cites

26 of 26 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?

  • Unaddressed challenges in AI deployment in the energy sector are critical bottlenecks that risk impeding progress toward a decarbonized and equitable energy future.

    “unaddressed challenges in AI deployment-ranging from technical integration complexities to profound ethical dilemmas-are emerging as critical bottlenecks that risk impeding progress toward a decarbonized and equitable energy future [6,7].”
  • AI adoption challenges include socio-technical dilemmas such as algorithmic bias, workforce skill gaps, and eroding public trust.

    “critical socio-technical dilemmas including algorithmic bias, workforce skill gaps, and eroding public trust [7,14]”
  • Equity demands proactive identification and mitigation of algorithmic bias, which can otherwise lead to discriminatory outcomes in areas like grid service allocation or access to clean energy programs.

    “This demands the proactive identification and mitigation of algorithmic bias, which can otherwise lead to discriminatory outcomes in areas like grid service allocation or access to clean energy programs [7].”
  • Assembling cross-functional teams that include domain experts, social scientists, and ethicists is crucial for navigating complexity and building a culture of responsibility.

    “Assembling cross-functional teams that include domain experts (e.g., grid engineers), social scientists, and ethicists is crucial for navigating complexity and building a culture of responsibility [7].”
  • The practice of ex-ante algorithmic impact assessment aligns with broader principles of responsible AI governance.

    “This practice aligns with broader principles of responsible AI governance, which call for evaluating potential societal and ethical impacts before deployment to ensure technologies contribute positively to goals like energy justice [7,73].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, C.-F., Napolitano, R., Hu, Y., Kar, B., & Yao, B.
Affiliations
  • Clemson University (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • United States Department of Energy (US)
  • University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
Corresponding author
Chen, Chien-fei
Venue
Energy Research & Social Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-10
Volume
116
Pages
103653
ISSN
2214-6296 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4400310896
Cited by
24
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 3
FWCI
9.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Energy Research & Social Science (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (SBE-2334298)
  • Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
  • Wellcome Trust
  • U.S. Department of Energy
  • Building Technologies Office (DE-EE00009748, CMMI-2222849)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Environmental Justice and Health Disparities
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Energy and Environment Impacts
Keywords
machine learning bias, energy justice, algorithmic fairness, marginalized communities, energy burden, energy poverty, data collection bias, model deployment, privacy, social inequality, feedback loops

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