The DOI matches its Crossref record; 135 of the 141 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 129 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond
Open accessAbstract
Conventional algorithmic fairness is West-centric, as seen in its subgroups, values, and methods. In this paper, we de-center algorithmic fairness and analyse AI power in India. Based on 36 qualitative interviews and a discourse analysis of algorithmic deployments in India, we find that several assumptions of algorithmic fairness are challenged. We find that in India, data is not always reliable due to socio-economic factors, ML makers appear to follow double standards, and AI evokes unquestioning aspiration. We contend that localising model fairness alone can be window dressing in India, where the distance between models and oppressed communities is large. Instead, we re-imagine algorithmic fairness in India and provide a roadmap to re-contextualise data and models, empower oppressed communities, and enable Fair-ML ecosystems.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper de-centers West-centric algorithmic fairness by analyzing AI power in India through 36 expert interviews and discourse analysis, arguing that core fairness assumptions about reliable data, unbiased ML makers, and accountable ecosystems fail in the Indian context. It proposes a roadmap to re-contextualise data and models, empower oppressed communities, and enable Fair-ML ecosystems rather than only localising model fairness.
Key findings
- Data and model distortions: datasets are not always reliable due to socio-economic factors; half the Indian population lacks Internet access, with the excluded half primarily women, rural communities, and Adivasis; 67% of Internet users are male; models overfit digitally-rich profiles, typically middle-class men; caste, gender, and religion require different fairness implementations.
- Double standards and distance by ML makers: Indian users are perceived as “bottom billion” data subjects and “petri dishes” for intrusive models, with poor recourse; AI makers are described as distant and largely privileged class/caste males, e.g., Dalit sanitation workers tracked with microphones, GPS, cameras, and SIMs.
- Unquestioning AI aspiration: AI is aspirational in the Indian state, media, and legislation and is adopted early in high-stakes domains, while a weak ecosystem of journalists, researchers, and activists inhibits meaningful fairness; of 138 FAccT papers in 2019–2020, only one substantially engaged a non-Western context—Marda’s paper on New Delhi’s predictive policing.
- Proposed roadmap: re-contextualise data and models, empower oppressed communities through participatory action, and enable Fair-ML ecosystems; reservations are discussed as an Indic justice approach, with quotas ranging from 30% to 80% depending on policy.
Methods
- Qualitative interviews with 36 expert researchers, activists, and lawyers working closely with marginalised Indian communities: Computer Science (11), Activism (9), Law and Public Policy (6), Science and Technology Studies (5), Development Economics (2), Sociology (2), and Journalism (1); all had 10–30 years of experience; 24 were based in India, 2 in Europe, 1 in Southeast Asia, and the rest in the USA; 25 self-identified as male, 10 as female, and 1 as non-binary.
- Semi-structured one-hour interviews in English via video conferencing, captured through field notes and video recordings; recruitment used purposeful sampling until saturation; respondents were compensated except government employees; transcripts were inductively coded with seven top-level categories and analysed using feminist, decolonial, and anti-caste lenses.
- Discourse analysis of algorithmic deployments and emerging policies in India starting from Aadhaar (2009), including Indian news publications, policy documents, community media, and prior research.
Limitations
- Stated: the authors acknowledge that their interpretations of research ethics may not be universal, and that all authors come from privileged positions of class and/or caste; three authors are Indian and two are White.
- Stated: the concerns raised may also be true of other countries, and the broader goal should be global approaches to Fair-ML; the authors describe the challenges as large and open-ended.
- Evident from the text: the sample consists of 36 experts rather than directly affected community members, interviews were conducted in English, recruitment was purposive, 25 of 36 respondents were male, and the discourse analysis relies on secondary sources; findings are qualitative and interpretive rather than statistically generalizable.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
81 Not checked yet · 39 Own result · 23 No basis given · 21 Own interpretation · 1 Own method
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Proxies may not generalise even within the country, e.g., asset ownership: “If you live in Mumbai, having a motorbike is a nuisance.If rural, you're the richest in town.”(P9, CS/IS researcher).”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation (No official
hedgedSingle case- 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.
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 and model distortions: Infrastructures and social contracts in India challenge the assumption that datasets are faithful representations of people and phenomena.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 1 INTRODUCTION
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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We find that in India, data is not always reliable due to socio-economic factors, ML makers appear to follow double standards, and AI evokes unquestioning aspiration.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 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: passes — The paper gives a 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
“Ground truth on full names, location, contact details, biometrics, and their usage patterns can be unstable, especially for marginalised groups.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Mis-recorded identities
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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Data was reported to be 'missing' due to artful user practices to manipulate algorithms, motivated by privacy, abuse, and reputation concerns.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.1.1 Data considerations.
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.
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
“However the one-to-one correspondence in datasets often fails in India.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Mis-recorded identities
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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many discussed how consent to a data worker stemmed from high interpersonal trust and holding them in high respect-relationships which may not be transitive to the downstream AI applications.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.1.1 Data considerations.
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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A few respondents pointed to how household dynamics impacted data collection, especially when using the door-to-door data collection method, e.g., how heads of households, typically men, often answered data-gathering surveys on behalf of women, but responses were recorded as women's.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation (No official
plaindirect- 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.
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
“We find that in India, data is not always reliable due to socio-economic factors, ML makers appear to follow double standards, and AI evokes unquestioning aspiration.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Abstract
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
“However, this approach fails due to device sharing patterns [178], increased use of multiple SIM cards, and the frequency with which people change their numbers.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation (No official
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [178]
plaindirect- 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. 56
- Probably not a substantial claim. 51
In the paper
“of the 138 papers published in 2019 and 2020, only a handful of papers even mention non-West countries, and only one of them-Marda's paper on New Delhi's predictive policing system [127]-substantially engages with a non-Western context.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Unquestioning AI aspiration:
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [127]
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.
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
“• Occupation: traditional occupations may correspond to caste, gender, or religion; e.g., manual scavenging or butchery.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation (No official
hedgedcorrelational- 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 result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many respondents were concerned that the safety apps were populated by middle-class users and tended to mark Dalit, Muslim, and slum areas as unsafe, potentially leading to hyper-patrolling in these areas.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.1.1 Data considerations.
hedgedconditional- 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.
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
“Double standards and distance by ML makers: Indian users are perceived as 'bottom billion' data subjects, petri dishes for intrusive models, and given poor recourse-thus, effectively limiting their agency.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 1 INTRODUCTION
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
“• Skin tone: may indicate caste, ethnicity, and class; however, unlike correlations between race and skin tone, correspondences to Indian sub-groups is weaker.Dark skin tones can be discriminated against in India [60].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation (No official
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [60]
hedgedcorrelational- 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
“While Indians are part of the AI workforce, a majority work in services, and engineers do not entirely represent marginalities, limiting re-mediation of distances.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 1 INTRODUCTION
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.
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
“AI is readily adopted in high-stakes domains, often too early.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Unquestioning AI aspiration:
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. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Sub-groups like caste (endogamous, ranked social identities, assigned at birth [17,191]), 1 gender, and religion require different fairness implementations; but AI systems in India are under-analyzed for biases, mirroring the limited mainstream public discourse on oppression.”
- Also stated in: § Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation (No official · plain
“AI systems in India remain under-analysed for biases, mirroring the limited public discourse on oppression.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 1 INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [17]
- Not checked yetcites [191]
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.
- Also stated in: § Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation (No official · plain
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 AI imaginary is aspirational in the Indian state, media, and legislation.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Unquestioning AI aspiration:
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“• Zip codes: can correspond to caste, religion, ethnicity, or class. Many Indian zip codes are heterogeneous, with slums and posh houses abutting in the same area [20,36], unlike the rather homogeneous zip codes in the West from the segregated past [50].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation (No official
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20]
- Not checked yetcites [36]
- Not checked yetcites [50]
plaincorrelational- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some respondents reported on how the state and industry apparati collected and retained valuable, large-scale data, but the datasets were not always made publicly available due to infrastructure and non-transparency issues.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.1.1 Data considerations.
hedgeddirect- 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
“• Expenditure: on dietary and lifestyle items may be proxies for religion, caste, or ethnicity; e.g., expenses on pork or beef.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation (No official
hedgedcorrelational- 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.
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
“Models are over-fitted for digitally-rich profiles-typically middle-class men-further excluding the 50% without Internet access.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 1 INTRODUCTION
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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many respondents observed a bias towards upper-middle class problems, data, and deployments due to easier data access and revenue, as P8, CS/IS (computer science/information sciences researcher) put it, “rich people problems like cardiac disease and cancer, not poor people's Tuberculosis, prioritised in AI [in India]”, exacerbating inequities among those who benefit from AI and those who do not.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.1.1 Data considerations.
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 result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many respondents described how datasets under-collected darker skin tones and measurement scales like Fitzpatrick scale are not calibrated on diverse Indian skin tones.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation (No official
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. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“• Names: are revelatory proxies for caste, religion, gender, and ethnicity, and have contributed to discrimination in India [15,202], e.g., Banerjee or Khan connote to caste or religion location.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation (No official
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15]
- Not checked yetcites [202]
plaindirect- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some respondents pointed to how Dalit and Muslim bodies were used as test subjects for AI surveillance, e.g., pointing to how human efficiency trackers were increasingly deployed among Dalit sanitation workers in cities like Panchkula and Nagpur.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.2 Double standards by ML makers
hedgeddirect- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Several respondents described how strong aspiration for AI for socio-economic upliftment was accompanied by high trust in automation, limited transparency, and the lack of an empowered Fair-ML ecosystem in India.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.3 Unquestioning AI aspiration
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 result the paper reports from its own data — 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 contrast to how AI industry and research were moderately responsive to user bias reports in the West, recourse and redress for Indians were perceived to be non-existent.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.2 Double standards by ML makers
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Many described how social audits and working with civil society created a better understanding and accountability.8”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.2 Double standards by ML makers
plaindirect- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Many respondents described how lending models imagined middle-class men as end-users-even with many microfinance studies showing that women have high loan repayment rates [69,198].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.1.2 Model considerations.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [69]
- Not checked yetcites [198] 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.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Several respondents pointed to how automation solutions had fervent rhetoric; whereas in practice, accuracy and performance of systems were low.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.3 Unquestioning AI aspiration
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
“Such interventions were criticised for placing power in the hands of dominant-caste supervisors.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.2 Double standards by ML makers
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: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many discussed how low quality designs, algorithms, and support were deployed for Indians, attributing to weak tech policy and enforcement of accountability in India.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.2 Double standards by ML makers
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. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“• Language: Language can correspond to religion, class, ethnicity, and caste.Many AI systems serve in English, which only 10% of Indians understand [174].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation (No official
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [174] source
plaincorrelational- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Many respondents described how the Indian technology sector claimed to be 'merit-based', open to anyone highly gifted in the technical sciences; but many have pointed to how merit is a function of caste privilege [196,207].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.2 Double standards by ML makers
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [196] source
- Not checked yetcites [207]
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 result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Several respondents discussed how Indian AI engineers were largely”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.2 Double standards by ML makers
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
“• Documentation: Several AI applications require state-issued documentation like Aadhaar or birth certificates, e.g., in finance.The economically poor are also reported to be document-poor [173].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation (No official
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [173]
plaincorrelational- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“• Mobility: can correlate to gender and disability.Indian women travel shorter distances and depend on public transport, for safety and cost [138].Persons with disabilities often have lower mobility in India, due to a lack of ramps and accessible infrastructure [188].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation (No official
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [138]
- Not checked yetcites [188]
plaincorrelational- 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.
In the paper
“Many criticised how neo-liberal AI (including those from the state) tended to treat Indians as 'bottom billion data subjects' in the periphery [211]-being subject to intrusive models, non-consensual automation, poor tech policies, inadequate user research, low-cost or free products that are low standard, and considered 'unsaturated markets'.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.2 Double standards by ML makers
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [211]
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In some cases, those with 'poor' data profiles subverted model predictions-as in P23's (STS researcher) research on financial lending, where women overwhelmingly availed and paid back loans in the names of male relatives to avoid perceived gender bias in credit scoring.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.1.2 Model considerations.
plaindirect- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even when feedback mechanisms were included, respondents shared that they were not always localised for India, and incidents were not always recognised unless an activist contacted the company staff directly.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.2 Double standards by ML makers
hedgeddirect- 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
“• Devices and infrastructure: Internet access corresponds to gender, caste, and class, with 67% Internet users being males [102].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation (No official
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [102]
plaincorrelational- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — 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 instance, P11, tech policy researcher, illustrated how lending apps instantly determined creditworthiness through alternative credit histories built based on the user's SMS messages, calls, and social networks (due to limited credit or banking history).”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.1.2 Model considerations.
plaindirectSingle case- 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 result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some talked about a colonial mindset of tight control in decision-making on automation laws, leading to reticent and monoscopic views by the judiciary and state.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Algorithmic opacity and authority
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: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“e.g., P29 (LGBTQ+ activist) discussed how AI was justified in the public domain, e.g., surveillance for smart cities, 11 as women's safety measures, but tended to invisibilise transgender members or increase monitoring of Dalit and Muslim areas, e.g., a FR was deployed outside women's restrooms to detect intrusion by non-female entrants, potentially leading to violence against transgender members.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Disputing AI4All
hedgeddirectSingle case- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Many respondents expressed concern over AI advances in detecting sexuality, criminality, or terrorism (e.g., [187,212]) potentially being exported to India and harming minorities.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Disputing AI4All
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [187]
- Not checked yetcites [212] source
hedgedconditional- 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 result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Critiques were raised in our study on how neo-liberal AI followed a broader pattern of extraction from the 'bottom billion' data subjects and labourers.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 5.2.3 First-world care in deployments.
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: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Many described how disproportionate confidence in high-tech solutions, combined with limited technology policy engagement among decision-makers, appeared to lead to sub-par high-stakes solutions, e.g., the FR service used by Delhi Police was reported to have very low accuracy and failed to distinguish between boy and girl children [5]. 10”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.3 Unquestioning AI aspiration
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5]
hedgeddirect- 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 result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“P15 (journalist) pointed out that journalists may face disapproval for questioning certain narratives.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Algorithmic opacity and authority
hedgedconditionalSingle case- 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
“Our study discusses how caste, religion, and tribe are eluded even within the Indian technology discourse and policy.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 5.2.1 Participatory Fair-ML knowledge systems.
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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that data was not always reliable due to socioeconomic factors, ML products for Indian users sufffer from double standards, and AI was seen with unquestioning aspiration.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 6 CONCLUSION
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.
- Rests on an assumption: The views and experiences reported by the interview respondents are representative enough of Indian AI practices to support general conclusions about India.
In the paper
“Additionally, respondents pointed to significant scope creep in high-stakes AI, e.g., a few mentioned how the tender for an FR system was initially motivated by detecting criminals, later missing children, to then arresting protestors [5].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Algorithmic opacity and authority
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5]
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Some respondents mentioned how a few automation solutions were announced following public sentiment, but turned into surveillance e.g., how predictive policing in Delhi and FR in train stations was announced after Nirbhaya's gruesome gangrape in 2012 and women's safety incidents [28,33].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.3 Unquestioning AI aspiration
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28]
- Not checked yetcites [33]
hedgeddirect- 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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many respondents described how limited debate and analysis of AI in India led to a weak implementation of”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Algorithmic opacity and authority
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 result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fairness in India was reported to suffer from a lack of access to contributing datasets, APIs, and documentation, with several respondents describing how challenging it was for researchers and civil society to assess the high-stakes AI systems.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Algorithmic opacity and authority
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.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We presented a qualitative study and discourse analysis of algorithmic power in India, and found that algorithmic fairness assumptions are challenged in the Indian context.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 6 CONCLUSION
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.
- Rests on an assumption: The views and experiences reported by the interview respondents are representative enough of Indian AI practices to support general conclusions about India.
In the paper
“Indeed, notions of algorithmic fairness seem to fit within a broad arc of enlightenment and post-enlightenment thinking, including in actuarial risk assessment [147].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 2.1.3 Philosophical roots.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [147] source
hedgedcorrelational- 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.
In the paper
“Similarly, a study of children in three different cultures found that notions of distributive justice are not universal: “children from a partially hunter-gatherer, egalitarian African culture distributed the spoils more equally than did the other two cultures, with merit playing only a limited role” [185].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 2.2 Fairness perceptions across cultures
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [185] source
plaincorrelational- 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.
In the paper
“Summarising decades worth of research, [120] says that the more collectivist and hierarchical societies in the East differs from the more individualistic and egalitarian cultures of the West in how different forms of justicedistributive, procedural, and retributive-are conceptualised and achieved.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 2.2 Fairness perceptions across cultures
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [120] 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.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Conventional western AI fairness is becoming a universal ethical framework for AI; consider the AI strategies from India [1], Tunisia [205], Mexico [129], and Uruguay [13] that espouse fairness and transparency, but pay less attention to what is fair in local contexts.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 1 INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1]
- Not checked yetcites [205]
- Not checked yetcites [129] 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
“Indeed, researchers since the late 1960s have tried to translate US antidiscrimination law into statistical metrics [90].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 2.1.2 Legal framing.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [90]
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.
In the paper
“While the concern for justice has a long history in the West (e.g., Aristotle, Rawls) and the East (e.g., Confucius, Chanakya), they show that the majority of empirical work on social justice has been situated in the US and Western Europe, grounding the understanding of justice in the Western cultural context.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 2.2 Fairness perceptions across cultures
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [120] 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.
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
“Without engagement with the conditions, values, politics, and histories of the non-West, AI fairness can be a tokenism, at best-pernicious, at worst-for communities.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 1 INTRODUCTION
plainconditional- 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.
In the paper
“For instance, [40] compared the acquisition of fairness behaviour in seven different societies: Canada, India, Mexico, Peru, Senegal, Uganda, and the USA, and found that while children from all cultures developed aversion towards disadvantageous inequity (avoid receiving less than a peer), advantageous inequity aversion (avoid receiving more than a peer) was more prevalent in the West.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 2.2 Fairness perceptions across cultures
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [40] source
plaincorrelational- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Researchers have documented societal biases in predictive policing in New Delhi [127], caste [202] and ethnicity [15] biases in job applications, call-center job callbacks [27], castebased wage-gaps [124], caste discrimination in agricultural loans decisions [116], and even in online matrimonial ads [157].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 2.4 Accountability for unfairness
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [127]
- Not checked yetcites [202]
- Not checked yetcites [15]
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.
In the paper
“We recruited respondents via a combination of reaching out directly and personal contacts, using purposeful sampling [151]-i.e., identifying and selecting experts with relevant experience-iterative until saturation.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Recruitment and moderation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [151] source
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. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Accountability is fundamentally about answerability for actions [114], and central to these are three phases by which an actor is made answerable to a forum: information-sharing, deliberation and discussion, and the imposition of consequences [214].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 2.4 Accountability for unfairness
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [114] source
- Not checked yetcites [214]
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
“Lack of an ecosystem of tools, policies, and stakeholders like journalists, researchers, and activists to interrogate high-stakes AI inhibits meaningful fairness in India.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Unquestioning AI aspiration:
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Representational gaps in data is documented as one of the major challenges in achieving responsible AI from a global perspective [21,190].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 2.3 Algorithmic fairness in the non-West
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21]
- Not checked yetcites [190] source
plaincorrelational- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Half the Indian population lacks access to the Internet-the excluded half is primarily women, rural communities, and Adivasis [96,106,153,168,189].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.1.1 Data considerations.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [96]
- Not checked yetcites [106]
- Not checked yetcites [153]
- Not checked yetcites [168]
- Not checked yetcites [189]
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.
In the paper
“Recently, the IEEE Standards Association highlighted the monopoly of Western ethical traditions in AI ethics, and inquired how incorporating Buddhist, Ubuntu, and Shinto-inspired ethical traditions might change the processes of responsible AI [93].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 2.3 Algorithmic fairness in the non-West
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [93]
plainconditional- 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. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Accountability is fundamentally about answerability for actions [114], and central to these are three phases by which an actor is made answerable to a forum: information-sharing, deliberation and discussion, and the imposition of consequences [214].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 2.4 Accountability for unfairness
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [214]
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: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We took great care to create a research ethics protocol to protect respondent privacy and safety, especially due to the sensitive nature of our inquiry.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Recruitment and moderation
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“conventional gender roles in Indian society lead to men having better access to devices, documentation, and mobility (see [64,178]), women often borrowed phones.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Gender Identity & Sexual Orientation (No official
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [64] source
- Not checked yetcites [178]
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.
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 societal context where the distance between models and dis-empowered communities is large-via technical distance, social distance, ethical distance, temporal distance, and physical distance-a myopic focus on localising fair model outputs alone can backfire.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Unquestioning AI aspiration:
plainconditional- 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
“Nissenbaum distinguishes four barriers to responsibility in computer systems: (1) the problem of many hands, (2) bugs, (3) blaming the computer, and (4) ownership without liability [146].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 2.4 Accountability for unfairness
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [146]
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.
In the paper
“Transcripts were coded and analyzed for patterns using an inductive approach [201].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Recruitment and moderation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [201]
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Many, though not all, graduates of Indian Institutes of Technology, founders of pioneering Indian software companies and nearly all Nobel prize winners of Indian origin have come from privileged castes and class backgrounds [71,196].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.2 Double standards by ML makers
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [71]
- Not checked yetcites [196] source
plaincorrelational- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Researchers have pointed to the aspirational role played by technology in India, signifying symbolic meanings of modernity and progress via technocracy [149,150,176].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.3 Unquestioning AI aspiration
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [149] source
- Not checked yetcites [150]
- Not checked yetcites [176]
plaincorrelational- 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.
In the paper
“Reservations assigns quotas for marginalised communities at the national and state levels.7”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.1.2 Model considerations.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [164] source
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.
In the paper
“reported to be attractive for improving model robustness and training data [14].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.2 Double standards by ML makers
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14]
hedgedcorrelational- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“many have pointed to how merit is a function of caste privilege [196,207].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.2 Double standards by ML makers
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [196] source
- Not checked yetcites [207]
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: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“AI for societal benefit is a pivotal development thrust in India, with a focus on healthcare, agriculture, education, smart cities, and mobility [1]-influencing citizen imaginaries of AI.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.3 Unquestioning AI aspiration
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1]
plaindirect- 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
“Depending on the policy, reservations can allocate quotas from 30% to 80%.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.1.2 Model considerations.
plaincorrelational- 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.
In the paper
“Equipped with microphones, GPS, cameras, and a SIM, the trackers allowed detailed surveillance of movement and work, leading to some women workers avoiding restrooms for fear of camera capture, avoiding sensitive conversations for fear of snooping, and waiting for the tracker to die before going home [111].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.2 Double standards by ML makers
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [111]
plaindirect- 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.
In the paper
“Indian film stars are overwhelmingly fair-skinned, conventionally attractive, and able-bodied [108], not fully representative of the larger society.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.1.2 Model considerations.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [108] source
boosteddirect- 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
“Originally designed for Dalits and Adivasis, reservations have expanded to include other backward castes, women, persons with disabilities, and religious minorities.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.1.2 Model considerations.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [164] source
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.
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
“While engineers and researchers are mostly privileged everywhere, the stark socio-economic disparities between Indian engineers and the marginalised communities may further amplify the distances.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.2 Double standards by ML makers
hedgedconditional- 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
“One of the restorative justice measures to repair centuries of subordination-reservations are a type of affirmative action enshrined in the Indian constitution [164].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.1.2 Model considerations.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [164] source
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
“Contrast with the West, where a large, active stakeholder ecosystem (of civil society, journalists, and law makers) is AI-literate and has access to open APIs and data.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.3 Unquestioning AI aspiration
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: 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. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Reservations in India have been described as one of the world's most radical policies [25] (see [164] for more).”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 4.1.2 Model considerations.
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.
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
“AI is even more aspirational and consequential in non-Western nations, where it performs an 'efficiency' function in distributing scarce socio-economic resources and differentiating economies.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 5.3 Enabling Fair-ML Ecosystems
plaindirect- 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. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“AI is increasingly perceived as a masculine, hype-filled, technoutopian enterprise, with nations turning into AI superpowers [170].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 5.3 Enabling Fair-ML Ecosystems
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [170]
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. 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 considerations we identified are certainly not limited to India; likewise, we call for inclusively evolving global approaches to Fair-ML.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 6 CONCLUSION
boosted- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Low costs, large and diverse populations, and policy infirmities have been cited as reasons for following double standards in India, e.g., in non-consensual human trials and waste dumping [123] (also see [137]).”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 5.2.3 First-world care in deployments.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [123]
- Not checked yetcites [137]
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: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. 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
“For instance, personal names act as a signifier for various socio-demographic attributes in India, however there are no large datasets of Indian names (like the US Census data, or the SSA data) that are readily available for fairness evaluations.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 5.1.2 Model and model (un)fairness considerations.
plaincorrelational- 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. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“e.g., according to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) in 2015, 34% of undertrials were Dalits and Adivasis (25% of the population); 20% were Muslims (14% of population); and 70% were non-literate (26% of the population) [203].”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > Algorithmic opacity and authority
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [203]
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.
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
“Recontextualising data and models can only go so far without participatorily empowering communities in identifying problems, specifying fairness expectations, and designing systems.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 5.2 Empowering Communities
plainconditional- 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 quota system gives rise to the problem of matching under distributional constraints, a known problem in economics [23,79,105], but has not received attention within the FAccT community (although [51] is related).”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 5.1.2 Model and model (un)fairness considerations.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] source
- Not checked yetcites [79]
- Not checked yetcites [105]
boosteddirect- 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.
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
“Missing Indic factors and values in data and models, compounded by double standards and disjuncture in ML, deployed in an environment of unquestioning AI aspiration, face the risk of reinforcing injustices and harms.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 5 TOWARDS AI FAIRNESS IN INDIA
hedgedconditional- 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 relies on this without support.
There is a lack of substantial policy or research on advancing algorithmic fairness for India's large AI-interfacing population.
“Despite the momentum on high-stakes AI systems, currently there is a lack of substantial policy or research on advancing algorithmic fairness for such a large population interfacing with AI.”
The paper relies on this without support.
India is on a unique path to AI characterised by pluralism, socio-economic development, technocratic nationbuilding, and uneven AI capital.
“We contend that India is on a unique path to AI, characterised by pluralism, socio-economic development, technocratic nationbuilding, and uneven AI capital-which requires us to confront many assumptions made in algorithmic fairness.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The views and experiences reported by the interview respondents are representative enough of Indian AI practices to support general conclusions about India.
“We presented a qualitative study and discourse analysis of algorithmic power in India, and found that algorithmic fairness assumptions are challenged in the Indian context.”
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?
In the citing paper
“However, as existing literature makes clear, fairness is often contextual [57,90,91,131,136]: a seemingly”
From Out of Context: Investigating the Bias and Fairness Concerns of “Artificial Intelligence as a Service” (2023) · cites this paper as [131]
In the citing paper
“Transparency which supports broader accountability processes on training sets, models and internal processes behind these services, as well as in the widersense of acknowledgement of known-limitations, past failures, and lessons learnt [27,131] can help move AIaaS from the opaque, unknown and potentially harmful 'black-boxes' of today, to a more understandable, accepting of their own limitations,”
From Out of Context: Investigating the Bias and Fairness Concerns of “Artificial Intelligence as a Service” (2023) · cites this paper as [131]
In the citing paper
“As a part of the internal and external accountability processes, transparency can assist in facilitating algorithmic fairness.”
From Out of Context: Investigating the Bias and Fairness Concerns of “Artificial Intelligence as a Service” (2023) · cites this paper as [131]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > 5.2.1 Participatory Fair-ML knowledge systems.
“Initiatives like Design Beku [4] and SEWA [10] are excellent decolonial examples of participatorily co-designing with under-served communities.”
§ Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond > References
“10. Delna Abraham and Ojaswi Rao. [n.d.]. 84% Dead In Cow-Related Vi- olence Since 2010 Are Muslim; 97% Attacks After 2014 | IndiaSpend.”
Citations
Cites
A General Inductive Approach for Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation Data
Thomas, D. R. (2006) · American Journal of Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1098214005283748 · Cited by 10,858 · cited 1×
“Analysis and coding Transcripts were coded and analyzed for patterns using an inductive approach [201].”
MethodFanon, F. (2000) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-137-05194-3_4 · Cited by 7,516
The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2 · Cited by 6,220 · cited 1×
“The call for a global lens in AI accountability is not new [84, 155], but the ethical principles in AI are often interpreted, prioritised, contextualised, and implemented differently across the globe [98].”
A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning
Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K., & Galstyan, A. (2022) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3457607 · Cited by 5,812
Encountering development: the making and unmaking of the Third World
(1995) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.32-5764 · Cited by 5,446
The validity and practicality of sun-reactive skin types I through VI
Fitzpatrick, T. B. (1988) · Archives of Dermatology · doi:10.1001/archderm.1988.01670060015008 · Cited by 4,339 · cited 4×
“often used by researchers as a phenotype [46], but was originally developed to categorise UV sensitivity) [73].”
BackgroundInfluential(2018) · Cited by 3,510
Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature
Kamoche, J. G., & Thiong’o, N. W. (1987) · World Literature Today · doi:10.2307/40143257 · Cited by 3,088 · cited 1×
“A decolonial perspective (borrowed from Latin American and African scholars like [66, 70, 72, 134, 210]) helps us confront inequalities from colonisation in India, providing new openings for knowledge and justice in AI fairness research.”
BackgroundBarocas, S., & Selbst, A. D. (2014) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2477899 · Cited by 3,048
Model Cards for Model Reporting
Mitchell, M., Wu, S., Zaldivar, A., Barnes, P., Vasserman, L., Hutchinson, B., Spitzer, E., Raji, I. D., & Gebru, T. (2019) · Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287596 · Cited by 2,681
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 31
- Solon Barocas, Moritz Hardt, and Arvind Narayanan. 2017. Fairness in machine learning. NIPS Tutorial 1 (2017).
- Alexander Bogner, Beate Littig, and Wolfgang Menz. 2009. Interviewing experts. Springer.
- C Boyes-Watson. 2014. Suffolk University, College of Arts & Sciences. Center for Restorative Justice. Retrieved on November 28 (2014), 2015.
- Uma Chakravarti. 1993. Conceptualising Brahmanical patriarchy in early India: Gender, caste, class and state. Economic and Political Weekly (1993), 579--585.
- Susan Dray, Ann Light, A Dearden, Vanessa Evers, Melissa Densmore, D Ramachandran, M Kam, G Marsden, N Sambasivan, T Smyth, et al. 2012. Human--Computer Interaction for Development: Changing Human--Computer Interaction to Change the World. In The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies, and Emerging Applications, Third Edition. CRC press, 1369--1394.
- Jesse Graham, Jonathan Haidt, Sena Koleva, Matt Motyl, Ravi Iyer, Sean P Wojcik, and Peter H Ditto. 2013. Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. In Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 47. Elsevier, 55--130.
- IEEE. 2019. The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. "Classical Ethics in A/IS". In Ethically Aligned Design: A Vision for Prioritizing Human Well-being with Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, First Edition. 36--67.
- S Inayatullah. 2006. Culture and Fairness: The Idea of Civilization Fairness. In Fairness, Globalization and Public Institutions. University of Hawaii Press, 31--33.
- Mayank Jain. 2016. India's internet population is exploding but women are not logging in. Scroll.in (26 9 2016). https://scroll.in/article/816892/indias-internet-population-is-exploding-but-women-are-not-logging-inia
- Yuvraj Joshi. 2018. Racial Indirection. UCDL Rev. 52 (2018), 2495.
- Srinivas Kodali. 2020. Aarogya Setu: A bridge too far? | Deccan Herald. https://www.deccanherald.com/specials/sunday-spotlight/aarogya-setu-a-bridge-too-far-835691.html. (Accessed on 08/01/2020).
- Nitin Kohli, Renata Barreto, and Joshua A Kroll. 2018. Translation tutorial: a shared lexicon for research and practice in human-centered software systems. In 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparancy. New York, NY, USA, Vol. 7.
- Subramaniam Madheswaran and Paul Attewell. 2007. Caste discrimination in the Indian urban labour market: Evidence from the National Sample Survey. Economic and political Weekly (2007), 4146--4153.
- Emma. Martinho-Truswell, Hannah. Miller, Isak Nti Asare, Andre Petheram, Richard (Oxford Insights) Stirling, Constanza Gómez Mont, and Cristina (C Minds) Martinez. 2018. Towards an AI strategy in Mexico: Harnessing the AI revolution. In AI whitepaper.
- Newslaundry and Oxfam India. 2019. Who Tells Our Stories Matters: Representation of Marginalised Caste Groups in Indian Newsrooms. (8 2019).
- Rodrigo Ochigame. 2020. The Long History of Algorithmic Fairness. Phenomenal World (2020).
- Lawrence A Palinkas, Sarah M Horwitz, Carla A Green, Jennifer P Wisdom, Naihua Duan, and Kimberly Hoagwood. 2015. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and policy in mental health and mental health services research 42, 5 (2015), 533--544.
- Amy Paul, C Jolley, and Aubra Anthony. 2018. Reflecting the Past, Shaping the Future: Making AI Work for International Development. USAID. gov (2018).
- Usha Ramanathan. 2014. Biometrics use for social protection programmes in India-Risk: Violating human rights of the poor. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development 2 (2014).
- Sharmila Rege. 1998. Dalit women talk differently: A critique of 'difference' and towards a Dalit feminist standpoint position. Economic and Political Weekly (1998), WS39-WS46.
- Sarah T Roberts. 2016. Digital refuse: Canadian garbage, commercial content moderation and the global circulation of social media's waste. Wi: journal of mobile media (2016).
- Oliver Rowntree. 2020. The mobile gender gap report 2020.
- Nithya Sambasivan, Garen Checkley, Amna Batool, Nova Ahmed, David Nemer, Laura Sanely Gaytán-Lugo, Tara Matthews, Sunny Consolvo, and Elizabeth Churchill. 2018. "Privacy is not for me, it's for those rich women": Performative Privacy Practices on Mobile Phones by Women in South Asia. In Fourteenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security ({SOUPS} 2018). 127--142.
- Nadia Saracini and Murali Shanmugavelan. 2019. BOND: Caste and Development. (2019).
- Amartya Kumar Sen. 2009. The idea of justice. Harvard University Press.
- Murali Shanmugavelan. 2018. Everyday Communicative Practices of Arunthathiyars: The Contribution of Communication Studies to the Analysis of Caste Exclusion and Subordination of a Dalit Community in Tamil Nadu, India. (2018).
- Ranjit Singh. 2018. 'The Living Dead'. Whispers from the Field: Ethnographic Poetry and Creative Prose (2018), 29--31.
- Nisha Tamang. 2020. Section 377: Challenges and Changing Perspectives in the Indian Society. Changing Trends in Human Thoughts and Perspectives: Science, Humanities and Culture Part I (2020), 68.
- Sukhadeo Thorat and Paul Attewell. 2007. The legacy of social exclusion: A correspondence study of job discrimination in India. Economic and political weekly (2007), 4141--4145.
- Tunisia. 2018. National AI Strategy: Unlocking Tunisia's capabilities potential. http://www.anpr.tn/national-ai-strategy-unlocking-tunisias-capabilities-potential/. In AI workshop.
- Virginius Xaxa. 2011. Tribes and social exclusion. CSSSC-UNICEF Social Inclusion Cell, An Occasional Paper 2 (2011), 1--18.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways
Chowdhery, A., Narang, S., Devlin, J., Bosma, M., Mishra, G., Roberts, A., Barham, P., Chung, H. W., Sutton, C., Gehrmann, S., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.02311 · Cited by 2,590
“, 2020), or biases that are salient in non-Western socio-cultural contexts, such as caste (Sambasivan et al., 2021).”
BackgroundSelf-citation“Everyone wants to do the model work, not the data work”: Data Cascades in High-Stakes AI
Sambasivan, N., Kapania, S., Highfill, H., Akrong, D., Paritosh, P., & Aroyo, L. M. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445518 · Cited by 781
“, [31, 98, 107], understanding socio-cultural factors e.”
BackgroundSelf-citationTaxonomy of Risks posed by Language Models
Weidinger, L., Uesato, J., Rauh, M., Griffin, C., Huang, P.-S., Mellor, J., Glaese, A., Cheng, M., Balle, B., Kasirzadeh, A., et al. (2022) · 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533088 · Cited by 764
“The axes along which unfair bias is encoded in the LM can be rooted in localised social hierarchies such as the Hindu caste system, making it harder to anticipate harmful social stereotypes across contexts [163].”
BackgroundEthical and social risks of harm from Language Models
Weidinger, L., Mellor, J., Rauh, M., Griffin, C., Uesato, J., Huang, P.-S., Cheng, M., Glaese, M., Balle, B., Kasirzadeh, A., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.04359 · Cited by 477
Fairness perceptions of algorithmic decision-making: A systematic review of the empirical literature
Starke, C., Baleis, J., Keller, B., & Marcinkowski, F. (2022) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/20539517221115189 · Cited by 316
“In one of the few studies conducted in a non-Western context, Sambasivan et al. (2021) further found that missing data and misrepresentation of subgroups in the existing data were critical reasons for algorithmic unfairness perceived.”
BackgroundSociotechnical Harms of Algorithmic Systems: Scoping a Taxonomy for Harm Reduction
Shelby, R., Rismani, S., Henne, K., Moon, A., Rostamzadeh, N., Nicholas, P., Yilla-Akbari, N., Gallegos, J., Smart, A., Garcia, E., et al. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1145/3600211.3604673 · Cited by 279
“proliferating false ideas about cultural groups [78, 189].”
BackgroundInfluentialAssessing the Fairness of AI Systems: AI Practitioners' Processes, Challenges, and Needs for Support
Madaio, M., Egede, L., Subramonyam, H., Wortman Vaughan, J., & Wallach, H. (2022) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3512899 · Cited by 156
“This may involve developing AI systems (and disaggregated evaluations) in ways that are responsive to local values and norms, as in recent research to re-imagine the fairness of AI systems in India [67], research that has highlighted the risks of algorithmic colonization [11] and efforts toward decolonial AI [49], or,…”
ResultRethinking Fairness: An Interdisciplinary Survey of Critiques of Hegemonic ML Fairness Approaches
Weinberg, L. (2022) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.1.13196 · Cited by 127
“…to further consolidate and centralize power, assets, control, and/or rights in the hands of a minority, such as in the context of international AI governance standards and AI for international social development that often privilege Western interests (Mohamed et al., 2020; Sambasivan et al. 2021).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialSocietal Biases in Language Generation: Progress and Challenges
Sheng, E., Chang, K.-W., Natarajan, P., & Peng, N. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.330 · Cited by 131
“Bias Evaluations It is difficult to evaluate societal biases in NLG tasks because NLG can be open-domain, and there are many different notions of biases from various backgrounds and cultures (Sambasivan et al., 2021).”
BackgroundWhat governs attitudes toward artificial intelligence adoption and governance?
O’Shaughnessy, M. R., Schiff, D. S., Varshney, L. R., Rozell, C. J., & Davenport, M. A. (2022) · Science and Public Policy · doi:10.1093/scipol/scac056 · Cited by 153
A toolbox for surfacing health equity harms and biases in large language models
Pfohl, S. R., Cole-Lewis, H., Sayres, R., Neal, D., Asiedu, M., Dieng, A., Tomasev, N., Rashid, Q. M., Azizi, S., Rostamzadeh, N., et al. (2024) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-024-03258-2 · Cited by 113
Seeing Like a Toolkit: How Toolkits Envision the Work of AI Ethics
Wong, R. Y., Madaio, M. A., & Merrill, N. (2023) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3579621 · Cited by 135
“[59] their information content away from the social and political contexts where AI systems are deployed and governed [56, 70], and from the organizational contexts in which those toolkits may be used [72].”
BackgroundDetecting shortcut learning for fair medical AI using shortcut testing
Brown, A. P. Y., Tomašev, N., Freyberg, J., Liu, Y., Karthikesalingam, A., & Schrouff, J. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-39902-7 · Cited by 127
Exploring How Machine Learning Practitioners (Try To) Use Fairness Toolkits
Deng, W. H., Nagireddy, M., Lee, M. S. A., Singh, J., Wu, Z. S., Holstein, K., & Zhu, H. (2022) · 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533113 · Cited by 99
“When faced with a fairness-related challenge, no single developer is likely to have all of the cultural and domain knowledge relevant to understanding or addressing the issue [9, 52, 92], and the appropriateness of different fairness definitions may be socially contested [73, 74, 79, 108].”
BackgroundStakeholder roles in artificial intelligence projects
Miller, G. J. (2022) · Project Leadership and Society · doi:10.1016/j.plas.2022.100068 · Cited by 111
”Because AI is 100% right and safe”: User Attitudes and Sources of AI Authority in India
Kapania, S., Siy, O., Clapper, G., SP, A. M., & Sambasivan, N. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3517533 · Cited by 90
“This is in contrast with India, which currently lacks substantial research on responsible AI development [107].”
BackgroundResultSelf-citationArtificial Intelligence (AI) in Islamic Ethics: Towards Pluralist Ethical Benchmarking for AI
Elmahjub, E. (2023) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-023-00668-x · Cited by 200
AI’s Regimes of Representation: A Community-centered Study of Text-to-Image Models in South Asia
Qadri, R., Shelby, R., Bennett, C. L., & Denton, R. (2023) · 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3593013.3594016 · Cited by 85
“First, we respond to prior calls to re-orient algorithmic fairness outside Western contexts [105, 106] by offering the first empirical study of T2I performance in South Asia.”
BackgroundDíaz, M., Kivlichan, I., Rosen, R., Baker, D., Amironesei, R., Prabhakaran, V., & Denton, R. (2022) · 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3531146.3534647 · Cited by 72
“In particular, [47] points out that the technical, social, ethical, and physical distance between the builders of a technology and the communities it is meant to serve is large, in such settings.”
BackgroundSelf-citationEvaluation Gaps in Machine Learning Practice
Hutchinson, B., Rostamzadeh, N., Greer, C., Heller, K., & Prabhakaran, V. (2022) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533233 · Cited by 97
“Also overlooked are inference-time externalities of energy use [28, 60], cultural aspects of the ecosystem [145], and long term impacts [29].”
BackgroundSelf-citationShahid, F., & Vashistha, A. (2023) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581538 · Cited by 80
“…fairness approaches, especially since the mainstream notion of fairness and universal ethics based on the Western standards can reenact coloniality [1], lead to unethical outcomes for marginalized groups [104, 123], and benefit those already controlling the power and computing resources [116].”
BackgroundYou reap what you sow: On the Challenges of Bias Evaluation Under Multilingual Settings
Talat, Z., Névéol, A., Biderman, S., Clinciu, M., Dey, M., Longpre, S., Luccioni, A. S., Masoud, M., Mitchell, M., Radev, D., et al. (2022) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.bigscience-1.3 · Cited by 77
“Sambasivan et al. (2021) and Chan et al. (2021) contend there remains a significant gap between the communities governing and governed by AI, and advocate for a redistribution of powers and responsibilities in developing responsible AI.”
BackgroundMaking AI Explainable in the Global South: A Systematic Review
Okolo, C. T., Dell, N. L., & Vashistha, A. (2022) · ACM SIGCAS/SIGCHI Conference on Computing and Sustainable Societies (COMPASS) · doi:10.1145/3530190.3534802 · Cited by 59
“[126] analyzed challenges surrounding ML deployments in India.”
BackgroundChanging the World by Changing the Data
Rogers, A. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.170 · Cited by 51
“…sub-groups, their values, and underlying social constructs may also differ across communities: e.g. both in India and US there is discrimination based on skin tone, but in the US context it stands for race, and in India it is a proxy for ethnicity, caste and class (Sambasivan et al., 2021a).”
BackgroundHow Platform-User Power Relations Shape Algorithmic Accountability
Ramesh, D., Kameswaran, V., Wang, D., & Sambasivan, N. (2022) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533237 · Cited by 61
“Unfortunately, these preconditions may be unique to Global North contexts [109].”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationOptimizing human-centered AI for healthcare in the Global South
Okolo, C. T. (2022) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2021.100421 · Cited by 49
“Research done by Sambasi-van et al. show that typical Western takes on algorithmic fairness are not portable in the context of the cultural values and standards in India.”
Backgroundvan Berkel, N., Sarsenbayeva, Z., & Gonçalves, J. (2022) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102954 · Cited by 48
Berman, G., Goyal, N., & Madaio, M. (2024) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642398 · Cited by 51
“Additionally, recent work has explored how existing algorithmic fairness paradigms originating in Western contexts may not be applicable in the global contexts of AI systems’ use [e.g., 24, 81, 83, 160, 175].”
BackgroundMethodEthical Considerations in AI Development
Singh, B. P., & Joshi, A. (2024) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-2964-1.ch010 · Cited by 43
Humans, AI, and Context: Understanding End-Users’ Trust in a Real-World Computer Vision Application
Kim, S. S. Y., Watkins, E. A., Russakovsky, O., Fong, R., & Monroy-Hernández, A. (2023) · 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3593013.3593978 · Cited by 37
“Work around those principal interests has begun to mature, as scholars begin to conduct more empirical research on factors and human perceptions of fairness [7, 13, 21], and going even further, to recognize the influence of sociotechnical context on factors of fairness, ethics, and accountability [12, 31, 37, 40, 42].”
Background(Re)Politicizing Digital Well-Being: Beyond User Engagements
Docherty, N., & Biega, A. J. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3501857 · Cited by 45
“[97], using India as a case study, reveals how value judgements im-”
MethodFairness in Language Models Beyond English: Gaps and Challenges
Ramesh, K., Sitaram, S., & Choudhury, M. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-eacl.157 · Cited by 60
Rismani, S., Shelby, R. M., Smart, A., Jatho, E. W., Kroll, J. A., Moon, A., & Rostamzadeh, N. (2023) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581407 · Cited by 38
“Similarly, scholars have developed contextual methods of assessing fairness by focusing attention on the situated power dynamics of where systems are deployed [107, 127] and transparency [123] of ML systems.”
BackgroundFATE in AI: Towards Algorithmic Inclusivity and Accessibility
Inuwa-Dutse, I. (2023) · ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (EAAMO) · doi:10.1145/3617694.3623233 · Cited by 42
“Because of the diverse audience affected by AI technology, ensuring effective transparency cannot be monolithic [23] or dominated by less encompassing viewpoints that can disproportionately affect different communities [43, 60].”
BackgroundPublic Health Calls for/with AI: An Ethnographic Perspective
Ismail, A., Thakkar, D., Madhiwalla, N., & Kumar, N. (2023) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3610203 · Cited by 38
“Researchers have studied how AI practitioners think about fairness, and considered the role of checklists and visualization tools in informing AI practice [34, 57, 73, 97].”
BackgroundEthical Reasoning over Moral Alignment: A Case and Framework for In-Context Ethical Policies in LLMs
Rao, A., Khandelwal, A., Tanmay, K., Agarwal, U., & Choudhury, M. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.892 · Cited by 79
Applied artificial intelligence for global child health: Addressing biases and barriers
Muralidharan, V., Schamroth, J., Youssef, A., Celi, L. A., & Daneshjou, R. (2024) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000583 · Cited by 35
Lewicki, K., Lee, M. S. A., Cobbe, J., & Singh, J. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581463 · Cited by 30
“supports broader accountability processes on training sets, models and internal processes behind these services, as well as in the widersense of acknowledgement of known-limitations, past failures, and lessons learnt [27, 128] can help move AIaaS from the opaque, unknown and potentially harmful ‘black-boxes’ of today,…”
BackgroundInfluentialLearning about Responsible AI On-The-Job: Learning Pathways, Orientations, and Aspirations
Madaio, M., Kapania, S., Qadri, R., Wang, D., Zaldivar, A., Denton, E., & Wilcox, L. G. (2024) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3630106.3658988 · Cited by 31
“Others wanted customized trainings for different geographic or cultural contexts [cf. 108] to help support AI practitioners who are “ looking [at RAI issues] in this specific country, here’s a process for fairness or how to test your models ” (E22).”
BackgroundInterrupting Merit, Subverting Legibility: Navigating Caste In ‘Casteless’ Worlds of Computing
Vaghela, P., Jackson, S. J., & Sengers, P. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3502059 · Cited by 31
“Asia as they might exacerbate existing caste and class inequalities [73, 116].”
BackgroundBehl, A., Sampat, B. H., Pereira, V. E., & Jabbour, C. J. C. (2023) · Annals of Operations Research · doi:10.1007/s10479-023-05624-8 · Cited by 38
“Lack of fairness in AI algorithms has led to bans and moratoriums (Sambasivan et al., 2021).”
Ethical Considerations from Child-Robot Interactions in Under-Resourced Communities
Kumar, M., Kumar, M., Fosch‐Villaronga, E., Singh, D., & Shukla, J. (2022) · International Journal of Social Robotics · doi:10.1007/s12369-022-00882-1 · Cited by 38
“Again, these researches come from a collaboration of scholars, including researchers working for industry and academia, and are primarily based out of India and the Indian context [66].”
BackgroundDetecting Cross-Geographic Biases in Toxicity Modeling on Social Media
Ghosh, S., Baker, D., Jurgens, D., & Prabhakaran, V. (2021) · Workshop on Noisy User-generated Text (W-NUT) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.wnut-1.35 · Cited by 35
“However, this reliance on lexicons and annotated data limit the focus to a handful of social injustices for which resources/lexicons are available, and largely ignores biases in non-Western contexts (Sambasivan et al., 2021) and online environments containing creative or noisy language variation.”
BackgroundSelf-citationFMEA-AI: AI fairness impact assessment using failure mode and effects analysis
Li, J. J., & Chignell, M. (2022) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-022-00145-9 · Cited by 29
“…to human rights laws that prohibit discrimination against “protected” groups [31] on the grounds of race, sex, age, religion, pregnancy and other characteristics, sometimes referred to as “prohibited grounds” [32]; these grounds depend on sociocultural context (e.g., caste in India; cf. [33]).”
BackgroundCulturally Aware and Adapted NLP: A Taxonomy and a Survey of the State of the Art
Liu, C. C., Gurevych, I., & Korhonen, A. (2025) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00760 · Cited by 81
Global Digital Data Governance
Aguerre, C., Campbell‐Verduyn, M., & Scholte, J. A. (2024) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003388418 · Cited by 24
Reliability Testing for Natural Language Processing Systems
Tan, S., Joty, S., Baxter, K., Taeihagh, A., Bennett, G. A., & Kan, M. (2021) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.321 · Cited by 31
“Crucially, reliability tests can be used to highlight fairness issues in NLP systems by including sensitive attributes for the target population, but it is paramount these requirements reflect local concerns rather than any prescriptivist perspective (Sambasivan et al., 2021).”
BackgroundPopova, K., Figueras, C., Höök, K., & Lampinen, A. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3637434 · Cited by 25
“Another line of criticism relates to the claims that these tools are also limited in their attention to structural inequality [10, 26, 68] and the need for greater participation of marginalized, impacted communities, and the Global South, at large [26, 58, 81, 86].”
BackgroundIndian-BhED: A Dataset for Measuring India-Centric Biases in Large Language Models
Khandelwal, K., Tonneau, M., Bean, A. M., Kirk, H. R., & Hale, S. A. (2024) · International Conference on Information Technology for Social Good (GoodIT) · doi:10.1145/3677525.3678666 · Cited by 42
“Overwhelmingly, this body of work is situated in Western contexts, relying on Western data, values and historical associations, and thus is not directly portable to non-Western contexts [54].”
Utilizing subjectivity level to mitigate identity term bias in toxic comments classification
Zhao, Z., Zhang, Z., & Hopfgartner, F. (2022) · Online Social Networks and Media · doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2022.100205 · Cited by 26
Choi, D., Lee, U., & Hong, H. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3517574 · Cited by 23
“Researchers have made multiple eforts to understand how people perceive fairness in algorithmic decision making [10, 40, 47, 56, 61, 73, 83, 90, 94].”
BackgroundUrman, A., & Makhortykh, M. (2022) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448221099536 · Cited by 21
“…are important for the ongoing debate about the algorithmic fairness and its applicability to the Global South and East (Mohamed et al., 2020; Sambasivan et al., 2021), in particular in the context of the responsibility of transnational tech companies for preventing systems they design from…”
BackgroundSalac, J., Oleson, A., Armstrong, L., Meur, A. L., & Ko, A. J. (2023) · ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER) · doi:10.1145/3568813.3600110 · Cited by 26
“In contrast, a similar study in India found that AI evoked an unquestioning aspiration in their participants due to the lack of an ecosystem to interrogate high-stakes AI [58].”
ResultOkolo, C. T., Agarwal, D., Dell, N. L., & Vashistha, A. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3637348 · Cited by 28
“…but growing body of work has started to explore how concepts of AI fairness and ex-plainability differ across Western and non-Western contexts [85, 103], little is known about what end users like CHWs, who have limited AI/digital literacy, need to know to cooperatively work with AI-driven tools…”
Intelligent Machine Learning Solutions for Cybersecurity
Singh, B., & Kaunert, C. (2024) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-5380-6.ch014 · Cited by 22
Trustworthy AI and the Logics of Intersectional Resistance
Knowles, B., Fledderjohann, J., Richards, J. T., & Varshney, K. R. (2023) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3593013.3593986 · Cited by 24
“Our recommendations below build on insights generated through examinations of power dynamics which negatively shape perceptions of AI [1, 7, 82, 88, 93], and have deep resonance with feminist approaches to AI (e.g. [52, 95]) insofar as they call for appreciating intersection-ality, actively…”
BackgroundUsing ChatGPT in HCI Research—A Trioethnography
Desai, S., Sharma, T., & Saha, P. (2023) · ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (CUI) · doi:10.1145/3571884.3603755 · Cited by 20
“Considering the AI field's focus on research, development, and design is predominantly centered on the "West" or "Global North" [47], AI systems such as ChatGPT have a disproportionate effect on the marginalized segments of the society [6].”
BackgroundPredicting Treatment Interruption Among People Living With HIV in Nigeria: Machine Learning Approach
Ogbechie, M.-D., Walker, C. L. F., Lee, M., Gana, A. A., Oduola, A., Idemudia, A., Edor, M., Harris, E. L., Stephens, J., Gao, X., et al. (2023) · JMIR AI · doi:10.2196/44432 · Cited by 18
Beyond "Fairness:" Structural (In)justice Lenses on AI for EducationPreprint
Madaio, M., Blodgett, S. L., Mayfield, E., & Dixon‐Román, E. J. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.08847 · Cited by 39
Tacheva, Z. (2022) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/20539517221112901 · Cited by 17
“It should come as no surprise that historically marginalized persons often end up on the wrong side of the “ hyperplane, ” but also that such algorithms — trained on Western-centric datasets — get deployed in the Global South where they perform dis-mally and produce harm (Sambasivan et al., 2021).”
BackgroundRepresentation in AI Evaluations
Bergman, A. S., Hendricks, L. A., Rauh, M., Wú, B., Agnew, W. S., Kunesch, M., Duan, I., Gabriel, I., & Isaac, W. S. (2023) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3593013.3594019 · Cited by 20
“In order to shift power in the right direction we need to (1) interrogate the values behind datasets [124] and (2) explore how data subjects can (re)gain control over their data, armed with the information to decide whether they wish to be represented [114].”
BackgroundInfluentialEvaluating the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion of NLP Technology: A Case Study for Indian Languages
Khanuja, S., Ruder, S., & Talukdar, P. P. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-eacl.131 · Cited by 28
“As disparities exist along multiple axes such as caste, gender, religion and so on (Sambasivan et al., 2021), it is imperative to go beyond the language level.”
BackgroundSociotechnical Implications of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Information Access
Mitra, B., Cramer, H. S. M., & Gurevich, O. (2024) · The information retrieval series · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-73147-1_7 · Cited by 28
Anoop, K. R., Gangan, M. P., Deepak, P., & Lajish, V. L. (2022) · Lecture notes in electrical engineering · doi:10.1007/978-981-19-4453-6_2 · Cited by 17
“caste and religion based discrimination [96]).”
Bennett, S., Claisse, C., Luger, E. A., & Durrant, A. C. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society · doi:10.1145/3600211.3604684 · Cited by 16
“We contribute to a growing body of literature in the AI Ethics and Society (AIES) and Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (FAccT) communities that investigate socio-political dimensions of AI and suggests conceptual tools to inform equitable design practice [4] [6] [12][48] [67].”
BackgroundInstance-Consistent Fair Face Recognition
Li, Y., Sun, Y., Cui, Z., Shen, P., & Shan, S. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2025.3545781 · Cited by 15
“Morerecentlyanumber ofworkshavebeendevelopedtointroducethefairnessinto machinelearningpipelinesandmitigatethedataoralgorithm bias[9],[34],[35].”
Zufall, F., Hamacher, M., Kloppenborg, K., & Zesch, T. (2022) · Natural Legal Language Processing Workshop (NLLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.nllp-1.5 · Cited by 23
“As group detection can work with any set of group categories, it can also be adapted to cover non-Western groups (Sambasivan et al., 2021).”
BackgroundHonor Ethics: The Challenge of Globalizing Value Alignment in AI
Wu, S., Demetriou, D., & Husain, R. A. (2023) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3593013.3594026 · Cited by 13
“We note that in practice, many non-WEIRD societies currently see AI with unguarded optimism [47].”
BackgroundMadaio, M., Chen, J., Wallach, H., & Vaughan, J. W. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3653705 · Cited by 19
“…may involve understanding what marginalization or fairness means in the particular sociocultural contexts in which AI systems are deployed [e.g., 8, 69]; understanding the public’s expectations’ for fairness in algorithmic pricing models [e.g., 27] or employee management algorithms [e.g., 67], as…”
BackgroundHussain, B., Aslam, S., & Imran, A. (2025) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105734 · Cited by 12
Seeing like a dataset from the global south
Sambasivan, N. (2021) · interactions · doi:10.1145/3466160 · Cited by 12
“AI-based solutions are readily adopted in highstakes domains, often too early [2].”
BackgroundSelf-citationStakeholder-accountability model for artificial intelligence projects
Maxmetrics, H., & Miller, G. J. (2022) · Journal of Economics and Management · doi:10.22367/jem.2022.44.18 · Cited by 13
“Those data, typically gathered from individuals and the public, may be incomplete, biased by past practices, or otherwise unavailable (Chasalow & Levy, 2021; Sambasivan et al., 2021).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialLazy Data Practices Harm Fairness Research
Simson, J., Fabris, A., & Kern, C. A. (2024) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3630106.3658931 · Cited by 13
“Overall, fairness research has neglected this important axis of discrimination and its intersections with other vulnerable identities [45, 73, 85].”
BackgroundSocietal Biases in Language Generation: Progress and ChallengesPreprint
Sheng, E., Chang, K.-W., Natarajan, P., & Peng, N. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.04054 · Cited by 12
“Bias Evaluations It is difficult to evaluate societal biases in NLG tasks because NLG can be open-domain, and there are many different notions of biases from various backgrounds and cultures (Sambasivan et al., 2021).”
BackgroundComparing Biases and the Impact of Multilingual Training across Multiple Languages
Levy, S., John, N. A., Liu, L., Vyas, Y., Ma, J., Fujinuma, Y., Ballesteros, M., Castelli, V., & Roth, D. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.634 · Cited by 18
Towards Geographic Inclusion in the Evaluation of Text-to-Image Models
Hall, M., Bell, S. J., Ross, C., Williams, A., Drozdzal, M., & Soriano, A. R. (2024) · The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3630106.3658927 · Cited by 11
“Similarly, Prabhakaran et al. [39] call for “culturally situated” evaluations [p. 3], while Sambasivan et al. [50] argue that fairness evaluations must account for non-Western perspectives on fairness itself.”
BackgroundBiju, P. R., & Gayathri, O. (2025) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-025-02381-z · Cited by 13
Sitaram, S., Choudhury, M., Patra, B., Chaudhary, V., Ahuja, K., & Bali, K. (2023) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-tutorials.3 · Cited by 10
Language, artificial education, and future-making in indigenous language education
Pradhan, U., & Dey, J. (2023) · Learning Media and Technology · doi:10.1080/17439884.2023.2278111 · Cited by 10
“This problem is even more exacerbated and di ffi cult to detect, given that Indian Language NLP currently has no ‘ benchmarks ’ , or a set of tasks, by which the functionality of a software is evaluated (Sambasivan et al. 2021).”
BackgroundWhat’s Impossible about Algorithmic Fairness?
Sahlgren, O. (2024) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-024-00814-z · Cited by 11
“In contrast, emerging proposals suggest designing and evaluating predictive instruments from more contex-tualized perspectives and local justice viewpoints (see, e.g., Green & Viljoen, 2020; Sambasivan et al., 2021; see also Boyd & Crawford, 2012).”
Rifat, M. R., Safir, A. H., Saha, S., Junaed, J. A., Saleki, M., Amin, M. R., & Ahmed, S. I. (2024) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3630106.3659030 · Cited by 17
“…process has been criticized in emerging literature [51] by acknowl-edging the interplay of various social identities reflected on the sense-making processes involved in annotation work [19, 30, 39, 66], how FRS values are entangled with such processes has largely remained understudied till date.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAI4Bangladesh: AI Ethics for Bangladesh - Challenges, Risks, Principles, and Suggestions
Mayeesha, T. T., Islam, F., & Ahmed, N. (2024) · International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development · doi:10.1145/3700794.3700820 · Cited by 12
“As majority of the non-technical stakeholders did not have adequate knowledge of fairness related issues even if a significant amount of work has already been done in the global south and the north [23, 47, 87, 106].”
Asiedu, M., Haykel, I., Dieng, A., Kauer, K., Ahmed, T., Ofori, F., Chan, C., Pfohl, S., Rostamzadeh, N., & Heller, K. (2025) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3715275.3732160 · Cited by 8
Yuan, X., Yuan, X., He, Y., Wang, Z., Ren, J., & Bryan–Kinns, N. (2025) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3715336.3735808 · Cited by 9
“Research should also examine the issue of technological accessibility–the disadvantages that local communities face in terms of computing resources and professional maintenance capacity may restrict their long-term participation in AI-driven collaborative innovation [74, 75].”
In her Shoes: Gendered Labelling in Crowdsourced Safety Perceptions Data from India
Sengupta, N., Vaidya, A., & Evans, J. A. (2023) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3593013.3593987 · Cited by 8
“We demonstrate that there is an urgent need to analyse potential bias in crowdsourced data [10], particularly from the perspective of the Global South, which has received woefully less attention in the scientific discourse around algorithmic fairness [25].”
BackgroundFlickr Africa: Examining Geo-Diversity in Large-Scale, Human-Centric Visual Data
Naggita, K., LaChance, J., & Xiang, A. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society · doi:10.1145/3600211.3604659 · Cited by 10
“While prior works have explored diversity beyond Western nations [24, 28], studies of access to, and applicability of, AI systems in Africa remain limited [1, 2].”
Sambasivan, N. (2022) · interactions · doi:10.1145/3516515 · Cited by 8
Self-citationMeasurement as governance in and for responsible AIPreprint
Jacobs, A. Z. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.05658 · Cited by 14
On Evaluating and Mitigating Gender Biases in Multilingual Settings
Vashishtha, A., Ahuja, K., & Sitaram, S. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.21 · Cited by 18
Gebru, T., & Denton, E. (2024) · Foundations and Trends® in Computer Graphics and Vision · doi:10.1561/0600000102 · Cited by 8
Algorithmic solutions, subjectivity and decision errors: a study of AI accountability
Biju, P. R., & Gayathri, O. (2024) · Digital Policy Regulation and Governance · doi:10.1108/dprg-05-2024-0090 · Cited by 17
DBNLP: detecting bias in natural language processing system for India-centric languages
G, K. K. T., Mendke, S., Parihar, R., Mayya, S., Venkatesh, S., & Koolagudi, S. G. (2025) · International Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s41870-025-02437-9 · Cited by 7
“[17] caters to the Indian context and aims to “re-contextualize data and models, empower oppressed communities, and enable Fair-ML ecosystems”.”
Algorithmic Bias and Discrimination in India: A Looming Crisis
David, D., Rajeshwari, B., & Timhna, S. (2025) · Journal of Development Policy and Practice · doi:10.1177/24551333251343358 · Cited by 7
“AI systems can perpetuate religious biases, particularly in a politically charged environment (Flowers, 2019; Sambasivan et al., 2021).”
Beyond the ML Model: Applying Safety Engineering Frameworks to Text-to-Image Development
Rismani, S., Shelby, R. M., Smart, A., Santos, R. D., Moon, A., & Rostamzadeh, N. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society · doi:10.1145/3600211.3604685 · Cited by 10
“Similarly, Responsible AI scholars have examined data collection processes and pointed out clear areas for improvement [18, 31, 70].”
BackgroundMethodBuilding Stereotype Repositories with Complementary Approaches for Scale and Depth
Dev, S., Jha, A., Goyal, J., Tewari, D., Dave, S., & Prabhakaran, V. (2023) · Workshop on Cross-Cultural Considerations in NLP (C3NLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.c3nlp-1.9 · Cited by 8
Self-citationA Global South perspective for ethical algorithms and the State
Sengupta, N., Subramanian, V., Mukhopadhyay, A., & Scaria, A. G. (2023) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-023-00621-9 · Cited by 7
Harnessing Machine Learning Intelligence Against Cyber Threats
Singh, B., Kaunert, C., & Gautam, R. (2024) · Advances in business strategy and competitive advantage book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-7658-4.ch016 · Cited by 7
Building Bridges: Generative Artworks to Explore AI EthicsPreprint
Srinivasan, R., & Parikh, D. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.13901 · Cited by 7
“Most works concerning AI ethics are influenced heavily by western cultures in their definitions, axes of discrimination, and philosophical roots [Sambasivan et al., 2021].”
What governs attitudes toward artificial intelligence adoption and governance?Preprint
O’Shaughnessy, M. R., Schiff, D. S., Varshney, L. R., Rozell, C. J., & Davenport, M. A. (2021) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/pkeb8 · Cited by 7
Addressing Algorithmic Bias in India: Ethical Implications and PitfallsPreprint
Sood, Y. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4466681 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Sambasivan, N., Arnesen, E., Hutchinson, B., Doshi, T., & Prabhakaran, V.
- Affiliations
- Google (United States) (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2021-03
- Pages
- 315-328
- OpenAlex
- W3123871787
- Semantic Scholar
- 187608bf94b2dccd25d1266ed925abf7b55dbb2e
- Cited by
- 228
- References
- 141
- Citations by year
- 2026: 60 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 13
- FWCI
- 27.85
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- public-domain
- creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ (vor)
- Locations
- ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
- Keywords
- algorithmic fairness, decolonial AI, model fairness, data reliability
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