Cited by 47Ethics and Social Impacts of AICybernetics and Technology in SocietySound Studies and Aurality

Ground truth tracings (GTT): On the epistemic limits of machine learning

Open access
Kang, Edward B·2023·Big Data & Society

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1177/20539517221146122

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kang, E. B.
Affiliations
University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Kang, Edward B
Venue
Big Data & Society
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
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