Ground truth tracings (GTT): On the epistemic limits of machine learning
Open accessAbstract
There is a gap in existing critical scholarship that engages with the ways in which current “machine listening” or voice analytics/biometric systems intersect with the technical specificities of machine learning. This article examines the sociotechnical assemblage of machine learning techniques, practices, and cultures that underlie these technologies. After engaging with various practitioners working in companies that develop machine listening systems, ranging from CEOs, machine learning engineers, data scientists, and business analysts, among others, I bring attention to the centrality of “learnability” as a malleable conceptual framework that bends according to various “ground-truthing” practices in formalizing certain listening-based prediction tasks for machine learning. In response, I introduce a process I call Ground Truth Tracings to examine the various ontological translations that occur in training a machine to “learn to listen.” Ultimately, by further examining this notion of learnability through the aperture of power, I take insights acquired through my fieldwork in the machine listening industry and propose a strategically reductive heuristic through which the epistemological and ethical soundness of machine learning, writ large, can be contemplated.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The assumption that ground-truth labels exist for unobserved attributes is controversial in many contexts.
“While standard in machine learning theory, the assumption that such ground-truth labels exist for unobserved attributes is controversial in many contexts(Cabitza, Campagner, and Basile 2023;Kang 2023).”
From Explainable AI Isn't Enough! Rethinking Algorithmic Contestability (2026) · cites this paper as Kang 2023
Cites
How the machine “thinks”: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms
Burrell, J. (2016) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951715622512 · Cited by 3,196 · cited 1× · see citing works
“” After all, as many researchers working under the banner of “ Critical Technology Studies ” have pointed out, “ algorithmic transparency ” is a limiting framework through which ML systems can be understood or interrogated (e.g. Burrell, 2016; Christin, 2020; Seaver, 2019, etc.).”
BackgroundDoes automation bias decision-making?
SKITKA, L. J., MOSIER, K. L., & BURDICK, M. (1999) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1006/ijhc.1999.0252 · Cited by 694 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…automated decision-making systems and to ignore contradictory information made without automation, even if the non-automated information is correct (Skitka et al., 1999), using ML for making decisions about people ultimately means that power is consolidated among those deploying and using the…”
MethodFoundations of Voice Studies: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Voice Production and Perception
Kreiman, J., & Sidtis, D. (2011) · doi:10.1002/9781444395068 · Cited by 339 · see citing works
Nonreplicable publications are cited more than replicable ones
Serra-Garcia, M., & Gneezy, U. (2021) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abd1705 · Cited by 177 · see citing works
Whose AI Dream? In search of the aspiration in data annotation.
Wang, D., Prabhat, S., & Sambasivan, N. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3502121 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
To protect science, we must use LLMs as zero-shot translators
Mittelstadt, B., Wachter, S., & Russell, C. (2023) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01744-0 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Can We Trust AI Benchmarks? An Interdisciplinary Review of Current Issues in AI Evaluation
Eriksson, M., Purificato, E., Noroozian, A., Vinagre, J., Chaslot, G., Gomez, E., & Fernandez-Llorca, D. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.06559 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Explainable AI Isn't Enough! Rethinking Algorithmic Contestability
Freiesleben, T., Meding, K., & König, G. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.16041
- Authors
- Kang, E. B.
- Affiliations
- University of Southern California (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kang, Edward B
- ORCID
- Kang, Edward B
- Venue
- Big Data & Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2023-01
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2053-9517 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4313816055
- Cited by
- 47
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 6
- FWCI
- 9.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Big Data & Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, University of South California
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Cybernetics and Technology in Society
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sound Studies and Aurality
- Keywords
- machine listening, biometric systems, learnability, ground truth, sociotechnical assemblages, power, machine learning ethics
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