The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 64 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach
Open accessAbstract
It has become trivial to point out that algorithmic systems increasingly pervade the social sphere. Improved efficiency-the hallmark of these systems-drives their mass integration into day-to-day life. However, as a robust body of research in the area of algorithmic injustice shows, algorithmic systems, especially when used to sort and predict social outcomes, are not only inadequate but also perpetuate harm. In particular, a persistent and recurrent trend within the literature indicates that society's most vulnerable are disproportionally impacted. When algorithmic injustice and harm are brought to the fore, most of the solutions on offer (1) revolve around technical solutions and (2) do not center disproportionally impacted communities. This paper proposes a fundamental shift-from rational to relational-in thinking about personhood, data, justice, and everything in between, and places ethics as something that goes above and beyond technical solutions. Outlining the idea of ethics built on the foundations of relationality, this paper calls for a rethinking of justice and ethics as a set of broad, contingent, and fluid concepts and down-to-earth practices that are best viewed as a habit and not a mere methodology for data science. As such, this paper mainly offers critical examinations and reflection and not "solutions."
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Birhane argues that algorithmic injustice is perpetuated by technical fixes that fail to center disproportionately impacted communities, and proposes a shift from rational to relational ethics. Relational ethics grounds justice and ethics in context, history, lived experience, and power asymmetries rather than technical solutions.
Key findings
- The paper contends that dominant responses to algorithmic harm—such as debiasing datasets and fairness metrics—are inadequate because they treat bias as a static deviation from a “correct” description and obscure structural, historical, and power asymmetries.
- It proposes four tenets of relational ethics: knowing that centers human relations and the disproportionately impacted; bias is not a deviation from the “correct” description; prioritizing understanding over prediction; and treating data science as a practice that alters the social fabric.
- It claims marginalized groups are disproportionately harmed by algorithmic systems and hold epistemic privilege to recognize harm, citing examples including object detection, recidivism, gender recognition/classification, and medicine.
- It calls for ethics as a down-to-earth habit and practice, not a mere methodology or tool, and states that this work is never done.
Methods
- Design: critical, conceptual, and reflective essay; no empirical study, dataset, or sample is used.
- Main analysis: comparative and philosophical argument drawing on Afro-feminist epistemology, enactive cognitive science, ubuntu, Bakhtinian dialogism, and complexity science to contrast rationality and relationality.
- No quantitative analysis or original numerical results are reported.
Limitations
- The paper states it mainly offers critical examinations and reflection and not “solutions”; it is not a set of general guidelines, principles, or out-of-the-box tools.
- The paper states relational ethics is not a rationally constructed abstract “theory of ethics” and does not provide implementable remedies.
- Evident from the text: no empirical validation, case study, or measurement is provided; the framework is conceptual and programmatic.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
60 Not checked yet · 23 No basis given · 17 Own interpretation
In the paper
“Pushing back against the dominant Western orthodoxy, Afro-feminist epistemology grounds knowing in an active and engaged practice.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Relationality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] Collins, 2002
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Mhlambi11 has further argued that the AI industry, grounded in rationality, reproduces harmful and discriminatory outcomes.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Rationality: the dominant orthodoxy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] Mhlambi, 2020, From rationality to relationality: ubuntu as an ethical and human rights framework for artificial intelligence governance
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The reality of the Western straight white male then masquerades as the invisible background that is taken as the “normal,” “standard,” or “universal” position.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Rationality: the dominant orthodoxy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [17] Ahmed, 2007, A phenomenology of whiteness, Femin. Theor. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“a persistent and recurrent trend within the literature indicates that society's most vulnerable are disproportionally impacted.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Abstract
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In contrast, for Afro-feminist thought, the researcher is an important participant in the knowledge production process.33”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Relationality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33] Nnaemeka, 2004, Nego-feminism: theorizing, practicing, and pruning Africa’s way, Signs source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Unjust and harmful outcomes, as a result, are treated as side effects that can be treated with technical solutions such as “debiasing” datasets8 rather than problems that have deep roots in the mathematization of ambiguous and contingent issues, historical inequalities, and asymmetrical power hierarchies or unexamined problematic assumptions that infiltrate data practices.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] Gonen, 2019, Lipstick on a pig: debiasing methods cover up systematic gender biases in word embeddings but do not remove them, arXiv
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The intrinsically political tasks of categorizing and predicting things such as “acceptable” behavior, “ill” health, and “normal” body type then pass as apolitical technical sorting and categorizing tasks.7”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] Bowker, 2000
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Data science, and the wider discipline of computer science, have implicitly or explicitly inherited this worldview.11”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Rationality: the dominant orthodoxy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] Mhlambi, 2020, From rationality to relationality: ubuntu as an ethical and human rights framework for artificial intelligence governance
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“according to the sub-Saharan tradition of ubuntu as encapsulated by Mbiti's28 phrase “I am because we are, and since we are, therefore I am,” a person comes into being through the web of relations.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Relationality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] Mbiti, 1969
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“socially and politically contested matters that were traditionally debated in the open are now reduced to mathematical problems with a technical solution.6”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] McQuillan, 2020, Non-fascist AI
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 62
- It may state two separate claims as one. 19
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the process of data collection, for example, the data scientist decides what is worth measuring (making some things visible and others invisible by default) and how.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Relationality
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Wisdom, and not “book learning,” enables one to resist oppression.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Relationality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] Collins, 2002
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The rational worldview that aspires to an “objective” knowledge from a “God's eye view” has resulted in the treatment of the researcher as invisible, and their interests, motivations, and background as inconsequential.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Relationality
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the desire to establish timeless and absolute knowledge, abstract and contextless reasoning is prioritized over concrete lived experience submersed in co-relations, interdependence, fluidity, and connectedness.16”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Rationality: the dominant orthodoxy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [16] Merleau-Ponty, 1968
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Knowledge claims are not worked out in isolation from others but are developed in dialog with the community.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Relationality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] Collins, 2002
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Relational frameworks emphasize the primacy of relations and dependencies.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Relationality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Knowledge, according to this worldview, is rooted in the ideal rational, static, self-contained, and self-sufficient subject that contemplates the external world from afar in a “purely cognitive” manner as a disembodied and disinterested observer.15”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Rationality: the dominant orthodoxy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] Gardiner, 1998, The incomparable monster of solipsism: Bakhtin and Merleau-Ponty
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Knowing and being are active processes that are necessarily political and ethical.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Relationality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] Collins, 2002
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“algorithmic systems, especially when used to sort and predict social outcomes, are not only inadequate but also perpetuate harm.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, despite the association of Bayes with rational predictions, Bayesian models are prone to spurious relationship and amplification of socially held stereotypes.24”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Rationality: the dominant orthodoxy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [24] Pager, 2009, Bayesian bigot? Statistical discrimination, stereotypes, and employer decision making, Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subsequently, discussions and understanding of concepts such as knowledge and ethics tend to be abstract, genderless, contextless, and raceless.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Rationality: the dominant orthodoxy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“can be exemplified by the deep contention that reason and logical coherence are superior for knowledge production (in understanding the world) above and beyond relational and embodied becoming.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Rationality: the dominant orthodoxy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since the rational worldview has come to be seen as the standard, anything outside of this is viewed as an outlier.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Rationality: the dominant orthodoxy
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A proponent of this position, Hanne De Jaegher,35 contends that our most sophisticated human knowing lies in how we engage with each other.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Relationality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [35] De Jaegher, 2019, Loving and knowing: reflections for an engaged epistemology, Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The privileging of reason as the ultimate criterion makes knowing a distant act.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Rationality: the dominant orthodoxy
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Far from a distant and “objective” discretizing logic, knowing is an activity that happens in the relationship between the knower and the known.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Relationality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [35] De Jaegher, 2019, Loving and knowing: reflections for an engaged epistemology, Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Kyselo,27 for example, contends that the self is social through and through—it is co-generated in interactions and relations with others.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Relationality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27] Kyselo, 2014, The body social: an enactive approach to the self, Front. Psychol. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Current data practices, for the most part, follow the rational model of thinking where data are assumed to represent the world out there in a “neutral” way.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Relationality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the process of data cleaning, rich information that provides context about which data are collected and how datasets are structured is stripped away.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Relationality
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Ahmed17 contends that all bodies inherit history and the inheritance of Cartesianism is grounded in a white straight ontology.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Rationality: the dominant orthodoxy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [17] Ahmed, 2007, A phenomenology of whiteness, Femin. Theor. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any data scientist working to automate issues of a social nature, in effect, is engaged in making moral and ethical decisions”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The rational view serves as the backbone for much of Western science and philosophy, permeating most fields of enquiry”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Rationality: the dominant orthodoxy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] Mhlambi, 2020, From rationality to relationality: ubuntu as an ethical and human rights framework for artificial intelligence governance
- Not checked yetcites [12] Terry, 1986
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Bakhtin29 emphasized that nothing is simply itself outside the matrix of relations in which it exists.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Relationality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [29] Bakhtin, 1984
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“The most reliable form of knowledge, especially concerning social and historical injustice, is grounded in lived experience.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Relationality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] Collins, 2002
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“At the heart of it, the Afro-feminist approach to knowing contends that concrete experiences are primary and abstract reasoning secondary.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Relationality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] Collins, 2002
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The mathematization and formalization of social issues brings with it a veneer of objectivity and positions its operations as value-free, neutral, and amoral.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] Bowker, 2000
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Data science and data practices reincarnate rationalism in many forms, including in the manner in which messiness, ambiguity, and uncertainty are not tolerated”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Rationality: the dominant orthodoxy
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Distant statistics or theoretical accuracies do not take precedence over the actual experience of a person.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Relationality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] Collins, 2002
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“The deep quest for the rational worldview is certainty, stability, and order, and thus isolation, separation, and clear binaries form the foundations in place of connectedness, interdependence, and dynamic relation.13”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Rationality: the dominant orthodoxy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] Prigogine, 1984
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Selfhood and knowledge are evolving and dynamic; the self is never finished—it is an open book.30”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Relationality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [30] Birhane, 2017, Descartes was wrong:‘a person is a person through other persons’, Aeon
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Not only does the inheritance of rationality to data sciences and computation make these fields inadequate to deal with complex and inherently indeterminable phenomena”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Rationality: the dominant orthodoxy
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Contrary to the rationalist and individualist worldview, relational perspectives view existence as fundamentally co-existent in a web of relations.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Relationality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Any generalization or theory constructed in the absence of deep understanding, not grounded in the concrete and particular, is vacuous.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Prioritizing of understanding over prediction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [58] Geertz, 1973
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“machine learning presents an extreme case of a very human predicament, which is that the only way we can generalize is on the basis of past experience.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Prioritizing of understanding over prediction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [61] Gross
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In a supposedly objective worldview, bias, injustice, and discrimination are (mis)conceived as being able to be permanently corrected.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Bias is not a deviation from the “correct” description
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Furthermore, gender classification systems often operate under essentialist assumptions and operationalize gender in a trans-exclusive way, resulting in disproportionate harm to trans people.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Knowing that centers human relations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [48] Hamidi, 2018, Gender recognition or gender reductionism? The social implications of embedded gender recognition systems
- Not checked yetcites [50] Keyes, 2018, The misgendering machines: trans/HCI implications of automatic gender recognition, Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Eventness is always particular, and never exhaustively describable in terms of rules.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Prioritizing of understanding over prediction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [59] Morson, 1989
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“The machine-detected patterns often provide “answers” to fuzzy, contingent, and open-ended questions. These “answers” neither reveal any causal relations nor provide explanation on why or how.65”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Data science as a practice that alters the social fabric
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [65] Pasquale, 2015
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“our deepest intuitions about all sorts of things, and in particular justice and injustice, can change dramatically.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Prioritizing of understanding over prediction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [61] Gross
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For any individual person, community, or situation, algorithmic classifications and predictions give either an advantage or they hinder.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Data science as a practice that alters the social fabric
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Humans are inherently historical, social, cultural, gendered, politicized, and contextualized organisms.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Relationality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Proposing an understanding of human knowing in analogy with loving, De Jaegher argues that in knowing, like loving, what happens is not neutral, general, or universal.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Relationality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [35] De Jaegher, 2019, Loving and knowing: reflections for an engaged epistemology, Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“neither people nor the environment and context in which they are embedded are static.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Bias is not a deviation from the “correct” description
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The rationalist tradition's tendency toward timeless and generalizable knowledge aspires to establish timeless laws and generalizable theories.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Prioritizing of understanding over prediction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Not only do machine-learning systems detect patterns and cluster similarities, they also make predictions based on the observed patterns.62”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Prioritizing of understanding over prediction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [62] O’Neil, 2013
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nonetheless, the relational versus rational divide is not something that can be clearly demarcated, but overlaps with fuzzy boundaries.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Relationality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Likewise, the historian of science Lorraine Daston contends that the endeavor for a universal law is a predicament that does not stand against unanticipated particulars, since no universal ever fits the particulars.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Prioritizing of understanding over prediction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [60] Daston, 2018, Calculation and the division of labor, 1750-1950, Bull. German Hist. Inst.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since knowing is a relational affair, it matters who enters into the knower-known relations.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Knowing that centers human relations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Machine-learning systems “work” by identifying patterns in vast amounts of data.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Prioritizing of understanding over prediction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“What society deems fair and ethical changes over time and with context and culture.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Bias is not a deviation from the “correct” description
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“To understand people, we must take into account “unrepeatable contextual meaning.””
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Prioritizing of understanding over prediction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [59] Morson, 1989
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Living bodies, according to Di Paolo et al.,37 are processes, practices, and networks of relations which have “more in common with hurricanes than with statues.””
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Relationality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [37] Di Paolo, 2018
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Machine learning, at its core, is a tool that predicts. It reveals statistical correlations with no understanding of causal mechanisms.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Prioritizing of understanding over prediction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“While the latter approaches often neglect those at the margins53 and shy away from power asymmetries and structural inequalities that permeate the social world”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Knowing that centers human relations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [53] Harrington, 2020, The forgotten margins: what is community-based participatory health design telling us?, Interactions source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The findings of Wilson et.al.,44 for instance, demonstrate that object detection systems designed to predict pedestrians display higher error rates identifying dark-skinned pedestrians while light-skinned pedestrians are identified with higher precision.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Knowing that centers human relations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [44] Wilson, 2019, Predictive inequity in object detection, arXiv
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accordingly, their knowing and understanding of the world around them necessarily takes place through their respective lenses.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Relationality
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although datasets are often part of the problem, this commonly held belief relegates deeply rooted societal and historical injustices, nuanced power asymmetries, and structural inequalities to mere datasets.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Bias is not a deviation from the “correct” description
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Concepts such as bias, fairness, and justice, however, are moving targets.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Bias is not a deviation from the “correct” description
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, underlying the idea of “fixing” bias is the assumption that there exists a single correct description of reality where a deviation from it has resulted in bias.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Bias is not a deviation from the “correct” description
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
““Our most sophisticated knowing,” according to De Jaegher, “is full of uncertainty, inconsistencies, and ambiguities.””
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Relationality
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [35] De Jaegher, 2019, Loving and knowing: reflections for an engaged epistemology, Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Before we delve into that, it is worth reemphasizing that while the rational worldview tends to see knowledge, people, and reality in general as stable, for relational perspectives, we are fluid, active, and continually becoming.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Relational ethics: the roots > Relationality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The harm, bias, and injustice that emerge from algorithmic systems varies and is dependent on the training and validation data used, the underlying design assumptions, and the specific context in which the system is deployed, among other factors.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Knowing that centers human relations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Bakhtin argues that such attempts to abstract general rules from particulars “loses the most essential thing about human activity, the very thing in which the soul of morality is to be found,” which Bakhtin calls the “eventness” of the event.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Prioritizing of understanding over prediction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [59] Morson, 1989
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These systems process people's behaviors, actions, and the social world at large.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Data science as a practice that alters the social fabric
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The core of what machine-learning systems do can be exemplified as clustering similarities and differences, abstracting commonalities, and detecting patterns.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Prioritizing of understanding over prediction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the most marginalized hold the epistemic privilege to recognize harm and injustice”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Knowing that centers human relations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Some identities (and not others) are recognized as a pedestrian,44 or fit for an STEM career,69 or in need of medical care.1 Some are ignored and made invisible altogether.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Data science as a practice that alters the social fabric
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [44] Wilson, 2019, Predictive inequity in object detection, arXiv
- Not checked yetcites [69] Lambrecht, 2019, Algorithmic bias? An empirical study of apparent gender-based discrimination in the display of STEM career ads, Manag. Sci. source
- Not checked yetcites [1] Obermeyer, 2019, Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations, Science source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Seemingly banal tasks such as identifying and predicting “employable” or “criminal” characteristics carry grave consequences for those that do not conform to the status quo.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Data science as a practice that alters the social fabric
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The process of categorizing, sorting, and generalizing, therefore, is far from a mere technical task.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Data science as a practice that alters the social fabric
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Algorithmic systems never emerge in a social, historical, and political vacuum, and to divorce them from the contingent background in which they are embedded is erroneous.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Closing remarks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Certain patterns are made visible and types of being objectified while other types are erased.”
§ Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach > Ethics built on the foundations of relationality > Data science as a practice that alters the social fabric
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Most solutions on offer for algorithmic injustice revolve around technical solutions.
“most of the solutions on offer (1) revolve around technical solutions”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most solutions on offer for algorithmic injustice do not center disproportionally impacted communities.
“and (2) do not center disproportionally impacted communities.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Automated and standardized solutions to complex social issues often contribute more harm than good.
“automated and standardized solutions to complex and contingent social issues often contribute more harm than good”
The paper relies on this without support.
Algorithmic systems increasingly pervade the social sphere.
“algorithmic systems increasingly pervade the social sphere.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“concerns over GenAI's sustainability also intersect with social justice issues, as communities that already suffer environmental disadvantages stand to be disproportionately harmed [16]”
From Understanding the Practices, Perceptions, and (Dis)Trust of Generative AI among Instructors: A Mixed-methods Study in the U.S. Higher Education (2025) · cites this paper as [16]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Nevertheless, Birhane (2021) argues that Western AI often imposes rigid, decontextualized systems that clash with the communal and contextual ways knowledge is held in Indigenous cultures.”
From Data colonialism and indigenous languages in AI: a critical review of existing initiatives and their struggles with data sovereignty (2026) · cites this paper as Birhane 2021
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This concentration of agenda-setting power and dominance of a small set of corporate actors risks narrowing the imaginaries of AI futures, privileging commercial interests over broader social concerns [6, 8, 21].”
From Reimagining Open Source and Openness in AI: Co-Creating Responsible Technological Futures (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The current AI field is shaped by rapid cycles of innovation and hype, with dominant generative AI narratives and agendas largely led by a narrow set of powerful actors (particularly large technology firms, but also influential standards bodies and platform owners) who exercise disproportionate influence in how openness is defined, operationalized, and legitimized.”
From Reimagining Open Source and Openness in AI: Co-Creating Responsible Technological Futures (2026) · cites this paper as [8]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“AI fairness scholarship has already underscored the need to examine power distribution and structures of exclusion inhabited by AI technologies [15, 93].”
From AI and Non-Western Art Worlds: Reimagining Critical AI Futures through Artistic Inquiry and Situated Dialogue (2025) · cites this paper as [15]
In the citing paper
“These systems have been shown to reinforce social and historical human prejudices and people who are traditionally marginalized in our society are disproportional negatively impacted [8].”
From Current Challenges and Future Opportunities for XAI in Machine Learning-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems: A Systematic Review (2021) · cites this paper as [8]
Citations
Cites
Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment.
Brewer, R. M., & Collins, P. H. (1992) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2074808 · Cited by 19,445
Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of populations
Obermeyer, Z., Powers, B., Vogeli, C., & Mullainathan, S. (2019) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aax2342 · Cited by 7,137
Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics
Bakhtin, M. (1984) · doi:10.5749/j.ctt22727z1 · Cited by 5,909
Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences
(2000) · The Journal of Academic Librarianship · doi:10.1016/s0099-1333(00)00155-5 · Cited by 5,212
The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information
Pasquale, F. (2015) · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674736061 · Cited by 3,796
On understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design
Winograd, T. A., & Flores, F. (1987) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/0004-3702(87)90026-9 · Cited by 3,685
(2018) · Cited by 3,510
Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor
Lebovits, H. (2018) · Public Integrity · doi:10.1080/10999922.2018.1511671 · Cited by 3,320
Bayes, T. (1763) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London · doi:10.1098/rstl.1763.0053 · Cited by 3,023
Algorithms of oppression: how search engines reinforce racism
Polynczuk-Alenius, K. (2019) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2019.1593485 · Cited by 2,934
Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism
Noble, S. U. (2020) · doi:10.2307/j.ctt1pwt9w5 · Cited by 2,709
(1968) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,451
Earley, J. E. (1985) · Process Studies · doi:10.2307/44798209 · Cited by 2,434
Order out of chaos : man's new dialogue with nature.
Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984) · Cited by 2,391
African Religions and Philosophy
Evans‐Pritchard, E. E., & Mbiti, J. (1969) · Journal of Religion in Africa · doi:10.2307/1594869 · Cited by 2,268
(2006) · Cited by 2,256
Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Mark, G., Fussell, S. R., Lampe, C., Schraefel, M., Hourcade, J., Appert, C., & Wigdor, D. J. (2017) · International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3025453 · Cited by 2,222
Ahmed, S. (2007) · Feminist Theory · doi:10.1177/1464700107078139 · Cited by 2,144
African Religions and Philosophy
Barrett, D. B., & Mbiti, J. (1970) · Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion · doi:10.2307/1384999 · Cited by 2,095
Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What Is ‘Strong Objectivity’?
Harding, S. (1996) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198751458.003.0016 · Cited by 1,939
Complexity and post-modernism: understanding complex systems
Cilliers, P., & Spurrett, D. (1999) · South African Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.1080/02580136.1999.10878187 · Cited by 1,888
Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics
R., R., Baxhtin, M., & Emerson, C. G. (1985) · Poetics Today · doi:10.2307/1771919 · Cited by 1,856
Participatory sense-making: An enactive approach to social cognition
De Jaegher, H., & Di Paolo, E. (2007) · Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11097-007-9076-9 · Cited by 1,640
(2018) · Cited by 1,167
Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design
Suchman, L. A. (1987) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/0004-3702(87)90024-5 · Cited by 1,062
Lambrecht, A., & Tucker, C. (2019) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2018.3093 · Cited by 854
Postcolonial computing: a lens on design and development
Irani, L., Vertesi, J., Dourish, P., Philip, K., & Grinter, R. E. (2010) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1753326.1753522 · Cited by 780
Lum, K., & Isaac, W. (2016) · Significance · doi:10.1111/j.1740-9713.2016.00960.x · Cited by 611
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(2009) · doi:10.1145/1518701 · Cited by 576
Jones, M., & Love, B. C. (2011) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x10003134 · Cited by 533
The Misgendering Machines: Trans/HCI Implications of Automatic Gender Recognition
Keyes, O. (2018) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3274357 · Cited by 505
African Philosophy: An Introduction
Ray, B. C., & Wright, R. A. (1979) · ASA Review of Books · doi:10.2307/532388 · Cited by 501
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London (A)
(1893) · Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo Series 2 · doi:10.1007/bf03017680 · Cited by 492
Berenstain, N. (2016) · Ergo an Open Access Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.3998/ergo.12405314.0003.022 · Cited by 490
Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
Mireille Hildebrandt, C. C., & del Castillo, C. C. (2020) · doi:10.1145/3351095 · Cited by 486
Nego-Feminism: Theorizing, Practicing, and Pruning Africa's Way
Nnaemeka, O. (2004) · Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society · doi:10.1086/378553 · Cited by 456
Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences
Overhage, J. M., & Suico, J. G. (2001) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-135-10-200111200-00030 · Cited by 401
Gitelman, L. (2013) · Cited by 399
Predictive Inequity in Object DetectionPreprint
Wilson, B., Hoffman, J., & Morgenstern, J. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.11097 · Cited by 330
Design Justice: towards an intersectional feminist framework for design theory and practice
Costanza-Chock, S. (2018) · Proceedings of DRS · doi:10.21606/drs.2018.679 · Cited by 325
Measuring the predictability of life outcomes with a scientific mass collaboration
Salganik, M. J., Lundberg, I., Kindel, A. T., Ahearn, C. E., Al-Ghoneim, K., Almaatouq, A., Altschul, D. M., Brand, J. E., Carnegie, N. B., Compton, R. J., et al. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1915006117 · Cited by 322
Artificial unintelligence: how computers misunderstand the world
Sharma, S. (2019) · Labour & Industry a journal of the social and economic relations of work · doi:10.1080/10301763.2019.1578096 · Cited by 302
Doing Data Science: Straight Talk from the Frontline
Schutt, R., & O’Neil, C. (2013) · O'Reilly Media, Inc. eBooks · Cited by 287
Linguistic Bodies: The Continuity between Life and Language
Paolo, E. A. D., Cuffari, E. C., & Jaegher, H. D. (2018) · Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) · Cited by 249
Gonen, H., & Goldberg, Y. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1903.03862 · Cited by 242
Gender Recognition or Gender Reductionism?
Hamidi, F., Scheuerman, M. K., & Branham, S. M. (2018) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3173582 · Cited by 240
Don’t ask if artificial intelligence is good or fair, ask how it shifts power
Kalluri, P. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-020-02003-2 · Cited by 213
Bayesian bigot? Statistical discrimination, stereotypes, and employer decision making
Pager, D., & Karafin, D. (2009) · The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · doi:10.1177/0002716208324628 · Cited by 207
Mitigating Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: Evaluating Claims and Practices
Raghavan, M., Barocas, S., Kleinberg, J., & Levy, K. (2019) · arXiv · Cited by 176
Dynamics in Action: Intentional Behavior as a Complex System
Juarrero, A. (2000) · Emergence · doi:10.1207/s15327000em0202_03 · Cited by 172
The body social: an enactive approach to the self
Kyselo, M. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00986 · Cited by 170
Loving and knowing: reflections for an engaged epistemology
Jaegher, H. D. (2019) · Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11097-019-09634-5 · Cited by 154
Star, S. L., & Bowker, G. C. (2007) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-007-9141-7 · Cited by 142
Rethinking Bakhtin: Extensions and Challenges
Šilbajoris, R., Morson, G. S., & Emerson, C. G. (1990) · The Russian Review · doi:10.2307/130028 · Cited by 141
All data are local: thinking critically in a data-driven society
Tupling, C. (2020) · Information Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2020.1817523 · Cited by 119
Towards Decolonising Computational Sciences
Birhane, A., & Guest, O. (2021) · Kvinder Køn & Forskning · doi:10.7146/kkf.v29i2.124899 · Cited by 117
Self-citationBakhtin and the Human Sciences: No Last Words
Bell, M. M., & Gardiner, M. (1998) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781446278949 · Cited by 103
Data science as machinic neoplatonism
McQuillan, D. (2018) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-017-0273-3 · Cited by 90
“Stories are data with Soul” – lessons from black feminist epistemology
Nadar, S. (2014) · Agenda · doi:10.1080/10130950.2014.871838 · Cited by 80
Marginality and Epistemic Privilege
Alcoff, L., & Potter, E. (2013) · doi:10.4324/9780203760093-7 · Cited by 80
The Bayesian boom: good thing or bad?
Hahn, U. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00765 · Cited by 65
The forgotten margins: what is community-based participatory health design telling us?
Harrington, C. N. (2020) · Interactions · doi:10.1145/3386381 · Cited by 55
All Data Are Local: Thinking Critically in a Data-Driven Society
Loukissas, Y. A. (2019) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/11543.001.0001 · Cited by 45
Barlas, P., Kyriakou, K., Guest, O., Kleanthous, S., & Otterbacher, J. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3432931 · Cited by 41
Slavin, K. (2016) · Journal of design and science · doi:10.21428/a39a747c · Cited by 35
Hiring by Algorithm: Predicting and Preventing Disparate ImpactPreprint
Ajunwa, I., Friedler, S. A., Scheidegger, C., & Venkatasubramanian, S. (2016) · SSRN Electronic Journal · Cited by 33
‘The Incomparable Monster of Solipsism’: Bakhtin and Merleau-Ponty
Gardiner, M. (1998) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781446278949.n9 · Cited by 18
Calculation and the Division of Labor, 1750-1950
Daston, L. (2018) · Max Planck Digital Library · Cited by 14
The Metaphysics of Ethics: A Conversation
von Foerster, H., & Poerksen, B. (2002) · Cybernetics & human knowing · Cited by 6
Non-Fascist AIPreprint
McQuillan, D. (2020) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/b64sw · Cited by 4
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Descartes, 1984, Vol. 2
- Birhane, 2017, Descartes was wrong:‘a person is a person through other persons’, Aeon
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey
Gallegos, I. O., Rossi, R. A., Barrow, J., Tanjim, M. M., Kim, S., Dernoncourt, F., Yu, T., Zhang, R., & Ahmed, N. K. (2024) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00524 · Cited by 1,245
Antoniadi, A. M., Du, Y., Guendouz, Y., Wei, L., Mazo, C., Becker, B. A., & Mooney, C. (2021) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app11115088 · Cited by 629
Reflexivity in quantitative research: A rationale and beginner's guide
Jamieson, M. K., Govaart, G. H., & Pownall, M. (2023) · Social and Personality Psychology Compass · doi:10.1111/spc3.12735 · Cited by 398
Using large language models in psychology
Demszky, D., Yang, D., Yeager, D. S., Bryan, C. J., Clapper, M., Chandhok, S., Eichstaedt, J. C., Hecht, C., Jamieson, J., Johnson, M., et al. (2023) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-023-00241-5 · Cited by 369
Power to the People? Opportunities and Challenges for Participatory AI
Birhane, A., Isaac, W., Prabhakaran, V., Diaz, M., Elish, M. C., Gabriel, I., & Mohamed, S. (2022) · Equity and Access in Algorithms Mechanisms and Optimization · doi:10.1145/3551624.3555290 · Cited by 330
“It is a process that prioritizes the net benefit of participants, especially those disproportionately impacted by oppressive social structures, who often carry the burdens of negative impacts of technology [11, 20, 57, 60] and reflecting a fair or proportionate”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Birhane, A.
- Affiliations
- University College Dublin (IE)
- Corresponding author
- Birhane, Abeba
- ORCID
- Birhane, Abeba
- Venue
- Patterns
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-02
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 100205
- ISSN
- 2666-3899 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7892355
- OpenAlex
- W3132771424
- Semantic Scholar
- a6de042d8a2baeeeb3d7e37e03c66c1fe07e7b36
- Cited by
- 707
- References
- 74
- Citations by year
- 2026: 251 · 2025: 177 · 2024: 85 · 2023: 94 · 2022: 73 · 2021: 25
- FWCI
- 12.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Patterns (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Science Foundation Ireland (13/RC/2094_P2)
- European Regional Development Fund
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
- Social Sciences › Law › Artificial Intelligence in Law
- Keywords
- algorithmic injustice, relational ethics, relationality, algorithmic harms, personhood, data ethics, justice
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
