Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Automated Ableism: An Exploration of Explicit Disability Biases in Sentiment and Toxicity Analysis Models

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 2307.09209 v1 pith:S6GES55Y submitted 2023-07-18 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CYcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.CYcs.LG
keywords biasanalysismodelssentimentdisabilityexplicittoxicitydetection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

We analyze sentiment analysis and toxicity detection models to detect the presence of explicit bias against people with disability (PWD). We employ the bias identification framework of Perturbation Sensitivity Analysis to examine conversations related to PWD on social media platforms, specifically Twitter and Reddit, in order to gain insight into how disability bias is disseminated in real-world social settings. We then create the \textit{Bias Identification Test in Sentiment} (BITS) corpus to quantify explicit disability bias in any sentiment analysis and toxicity detection models. Our study utilizes BITS to uncover significant biases in four open AIaaS (AI as a Service) sentiment analysis tools, namely TextBlob, VADER, Google Cloud Natural Language API, DistilBERT and two toxicity detection models, namely two versions of Toxic-BERT. Our findings indicate that all of these models exhibit statistically significant explicit bias against PWD.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Who Gets Left Behind? Auditing Disability Inclusivity in Large Language Models

    cs.CY 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Across 17 LLMs, accessibility advice covers only about half of relevant disability categories on average, and speech and developmental conditions are the most neglected.

Pith tools