Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Bringing the People Back In: Contesting Benchmark Machine Learning Datasets

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2007.07399 v1 pith:UTYUOOK3 submitted 2020-07-14 cs.CY

classification cs.CY
keywords datasetsdatalearningmachinebeenembeddedattentionback
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

In response to algorithmic unfairness embedded in sociotechnical systems, significant attention has been focused on the contents of machine learning datasets which have revealed biases towards white, cisgender, male, and Western data subjects. In contrast, comparatively less attention has been paid to the histories, values, and norms embedded in such datasets. In this work, we outline a research program - a genealogy of machine learning data - for investigating how and why these datasets have been created, what and whose values influence the choices of data to collect, the contextual and contingent conditions of their creation. We describe the ways in which benchmark datasets in machine learning operate as infrastructure and pose four research questions for these datasets. This interrogation forces us to "bring the people back in" by aiding us in understanding the labor embedded in dataset construction, and thereby presenting new avenues of contestation for other researchers encountering the data.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. "Just a strange pic": Evaluating 'safety' in GenAI Image safety annotation tasks from diverse annotators' perspectives

    cs.HC 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Annotators' open-ended comments on AI image safety reveal moral, emotional, and quality-based reasoning that standard safety taxonomies fail to capture.

  2. Can We Trust AI Benchmarks? An Interdisciplinary Review of Current Issues in AI Evaluation

    cs.AI 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A meta-review of about 110 critical studies finds nine systemic weaknesses in AI benchmarking and concludes that benchmarks are receiving disproportionate trust in AI governance.

Pith tools