The DOI matches its DataCite record; 33 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Datasheets for Datasets
Open accessAbstract
The machine learning community currently has no standardized process for documenting datasets, which can lead to severe consequences in high-stakes domains. To address this gap, we propose datasheets for datasets. In the electronics industry, every component, no matter how simple or complex, is accompanied with a datasheet that describes its operating characteristics, test results, recommended uses, and other information. By analogy, we propose that every dataset be accompanied with a datasheet that documents its motivation, composition, collection process, recommended uses, and so on. Datasheets for datasets will facilitate better communication between dataset creators and dataset consumers, and encourage the machine learning community to prioritize transparency and accountability.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“the electronic hardware industry provides datasheets with detailed characterizations of components' performances under different test conditions.”
From Model Cards for Model Reporting (2019) · cites this paper as [21]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“For example, Datasheets for Data Sets (Gebru et al., 2018) and Model Cards (Mitchell et al., 2019) are two examples of standardized reporting frameworks that may accompany clinical technologies.”
From Equipping Speech-Language Clinicians for the Critical Appraisal of an Artificial Intelligence–Driven, Evidence-Based Future (2025) · cites this paper as Gebru et al., 2018
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Recently, researchers have proposed standardized forms of communicating characteristics of datasets used in machine learning [3, 21, 28] to help users understand the context in which the datasets should be used.”
From Model Cards for Model Reporting (2019) · cites this paper as [21]
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Many mature industries have developed standardized methods of benchmarking various systems under different conditions.”
From Model Cards for Model Reporting (2019) · cites this paper as [21]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Advances in neural information processing systems 7
Cios, K. J., & Shields, M. E. (1997) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/s0925-2312(97)90018-7 · Cited by 22,093
Labeled Faces in the Wild: A Database forStudying Face Recognition in Unconstrained Environments
Huang, G. B., Mattar, M., Berg, T. L., & Miller, E. G. (2008) · HAL · Cited by 4,445
Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME)-toward standards for microarray data
Brazma, A., Hingamp, P., Quackenbush, J., Sherlock, G., Spellman, P., Stoeckert, C., Aach, J., Ansorge, W., Ball, C. A., Causton, H. C., et al. (2001) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng1201-365 · Cited by 4,109
(2018) · Cited by 3,510
Self-citationPang, B., & Lee, L. (2004) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.3115/1218955.1218990 · Cited by 3,376
Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases
Caliskan, A., Bryson, J. J., & Narayanan, A. (2017) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aal4230 · Cited by 2,887
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-citationThe Recent Past and Near Future of Risk and/or Need Assessment
Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J. L., & Wormith, J. S. (2005) · Crime & Delinquency · doi:10.1177/0011128705281756 · Cited by 1,620
Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddings
Bolukbasi, T., Chang, K.-W., Zou, J., Saligrama, V., & Kalai, A. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1607.06520 · Cited by 1,615
The Effects of Automobile Safety Regulation
Peltzman, S. (1975) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/260352 · Cited by 1,568
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- [7][7] Yang Trista Cao and Hal Daumé, III. 2020. Toward Gender-Inclusive Coreference Resolution. In Proceedings of the Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) . -
- [15][15] Kenneth Holstein, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hal Daumé III, Miroslav Dudík, and Hanna M. Wallach. 2019. Improving Fairness in Machine Learning Systems: What Do Industry Practitioners Need?. In 2019 ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . -
- [26][26] Semih Yagcioglu, Aykut Erdem, Erkut Erdem, and Nazli Ikizler-Cinbis. 2018. RecipeQA: A Challenge Dataset for Multimodal Comprehension of Cooking Recipes. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing .
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kirillov, A., Mintun, E., Ravi, N., Mao, H., Rolland, C., Gustafson, L., Xiao, T., Whitehead, S., Berg, A. C., Lo, W.-Y., et al. (2023) · 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv51070.2023.00371 · Cited by 11,953
On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? 🦜
Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445922 · Cited by 6,988
Self-citationLarge language models encode clinical knowledge
Singhal, K., Azizi, S., Tu, T., Mahdavi, S. S., Wei, J., Chung, H. W., Scales, N., Tanwani, A., Cole-Lewis, H., Pfohl, S., et al. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06291-2 · Cited by 4,083
On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models
Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.07258 · Cited by 2,676
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., Daumé, H., & Crawford, K.
- Affiliations
- DAIR Institute (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- Cornell University (US)
- Microsoft Research New York City (United States) (US)
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- University of Southern California (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2018
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 86-92
- ISSN
- 0001-0782 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1803.09010
- OpenAlex
- W2795038878
- Cited by
- 2,474
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 795 · 2025: 402 · 2024: 298 · 2023: 379 · 2022: 221 · 2021: 216 · 2020: 91 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 11
- FWCI
- 251.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- Communications of the ACM (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Scientific Computing and Data Management
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Semantic Web and Ontologies
- Keywords
- dataset documentation, data provenance, data sharing, data reuse, metadata
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
