Cited by 40

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

On minorities and outliers: The case for making Big Data small

Welles, Brooke Foucault·2014·Big Data & Society

Abstract

In this essay, I make the case for choosing to examine small subsets of Big Data datasets—making big data small. Big Data allows us to produce summaries of human behavior at a scale never before possible. But in the push to produce these summaries, we risk losing sight of a secondary but equally important advantage of Big Data—the plentiful representation of minorities. Women, minorities and statistical outliers have historically been omitted from the scientific record, with problematic consequences. Big Data affords the opportunity to remedy those omissions. However, to do so, Big Data researchers must choose to examine very small subsets of otherwise large datasets. I encourage researchers to embrace an ethical, empirical and epistemological stance on Big Data that includes minorities and outliers as reference categories, rather than the exceptions to statistical norms.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2053951714540613

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. 10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.014 · DOI
  3. Gilligan C, 1982, In a Different Voice
  4. Keller EF, 1995, Reflections on Gender and Science
  5. 10.1126/science.1167742 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1111/j.1475-682X.1974.tb00718.x · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Welles, B. F.
Affiliations
Northeastern University, USA
Venue
Big Data & Society
Published
2014-04-01
Volume
1
Issue
1
ISSN
2053-9517
Cited by
40
References
1
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review