Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Unequal Voices: How LLMs Construct Constrained Queer Narratives

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that LLM portrayals of LGBTQ+ people, in otherwise neutral settings, are significantly different from non-queer portrayals and default to identity-related topics, a narrowing that persists across six open-weight models.

desk verdict A multi-model audit showing LLMs narrow queer personas toward identity topics, but the unvalidated LLM judge leaves the exact size of the gap uncertain. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15585 v1 pith:CRD3QDK5 submitted 2025-07-21 cs.CY cs.AI

Atreya Ghosal , Ashim Gupta , Vivek Srikumar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.AI
keywords queerrepresentationLLMbiasrepresentationalharmdiscursiveotheringLLM-as-a-judgetopicdivergencepersonapromptingLGBTQ+narratives
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Large language models, asked to simulate or interact with a queer person in an everyday setting, do not treat that person the way they treat a non-queer person. The paper tests this with four hypotheses across six open-weight models and five neutral contexts (housing, medical, persona, recommendation, work), and reports that queer-subject outputs contain markedly more diversity-and-inclusion vocabulary, more references to gender or sexuality, more cues of marginalization, and topic distributions that differ from non-queer outputs, mostly at $p<0.01$. The authors read this as evidence of constrained representation and discursive othering: queer characters are made hyper-visible through identity talk while non-queer characters get the full range of everyday life. If correct, this matters because LLMs are already used as therapists, tutors, and co-writers, so the narrowing is not a neutral quirk; it shapes real conversations about human lives.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on persona-context prompting combined with an LLM-as-a-judge measurement pipeline. Each prompt is a template with an identity slot, filled by phrases such as 'trans man' (QUEER) or 'man' (NOT-QUEER), set in one of five everyday contexts. The judge model, Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, answers four YES/NO questions (Does the text reference the subject's gender or sexuality? Does it imply a unique perspective due to identity? Does it focus on identity over the setting? Does it imply membership in a marginalized group?) and, separately, extracts topic labels from each response, sampled 50 times per response to form empirical topic distributions. Jensen-Shannon divergence between queer and non-queer topic distributions, with permutation tests, converts the qualitative pattern into a significance claim.

What would settle it

Take the same generated responses, strip all identity-coded words (queer, trans, pronouns, diversity terms) and ask the judge Q1-Q4 again, or have human raters label a sample. If the judge's YES rate for queer responses does not drop when identity cues are removed, or if humans disagree with the judge's topic labels, the measured divergence is an artifact of the judge rather than of the underlying models.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that LLM portrayals of LGBTQ+ people, in otherwise neutral settings, are significantly different from non-queer portrayals and narrowly focus on identity-related topics to a degree not seen for non-queer people. It formulates and validates four hypotheses: H1 (more diversity/inclusion terms for queer subjects), H2 (more identity references and identity-related discussion), H3 (more identity-linked conflict, harassment, or negative experience), and H4 (distinct topic distributions). The supporting evidence spans six open-weight instruction-tuned models; the H4 topic-divergence differences are mostly significant at $p<0.01$ under permutation testing, and the largest effects occur when the model itself speaks as the queer persona. The paper interprets these patterns as discursive othering and narrow representation rather than overt hostility, and explicitly notes that even positive-sounding attention to diversity can mark queer people as separate.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct being an unbiased rater of identity themes and topics, with no human agreement statistics reported; if it systematically reads queer-coded text as identity-focused, the measured gaps shrink or vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every downstream use where an LLM simulates a queer persona—chatbots, educational agents, co-writing tools—inherits the narrowed narrative, not just explicit hostile outputs.
  • In simulated medical consultations, queer patients' conversations concentrate on sexual health, pronouns, and transition, a machine analogue of 'Trans Broken Arm Syndrome'.
  • Because the divergence appears across all six tested models and most contexts, the effect looks systemic to current open-weight instruction-tuned models rather than a single-model accident.
  • The asymmetry between Identity=Model and Identity=User prompts suggests the narrowing is strongest when the model speaks in the voice of the queer person, not when it merely addresses one.
  • Elevated marginalization cues under H3 mean the observed narrowing carries a negative valence: simulated queer characters are more often placed in conflict, harassment, or discrimination scenarios.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Reading further than the paper: the same judge-based pipeline could be pointed at other marginalized identities, but the strongest evidence in H1 (raw word frequencies) would need identity-specific term lists rather than the four generic words used here.
  • The paper does not compare whether a human reader would notice the asymmetry; a natural next test is to show paired outputs to naive readers and see whether they independently rate queer personas as more identity-focused.
  • The measured divergence might partly reflect truthful statistical differences in lived experience, a point the paper acknowledges; a sharper test would control for base rates by asking for the same scenarios with explicit non-identity traits.
  • Because the judge is itself an LLM, swapping the judge for a different model (or a prompted ensemble) would show whether the reported gaps are stable across measurement tools or partly an artifact of Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct's own associations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper investigates whether LLMs generate constrained, identity-focused narratives for queer personas in otherwise neutral social contexts. Using six open-weight instruction-tuned models (Llama-3.1-8B/70B, Llama-3.3-70B, Qwen2.5-14B/72B, Gemma3-12B), five contexts (Housing, Medical, Persona, Recommendation, Work), and two role conditions (Identity=User and Identity=Model), it tests four hypotheses: H1 via frequency of diversity/inclusion keywords, H2 and H3 via an LLM-as-a-judge answering four YES/NO questions, and H4 via Jensen-Shannon divergence between LLM-judge topic distributions. The reported results show positive queer-minus-non-queer differences across models for H1-H3 and statistically significant topic divergences for H4, which the authors interpret as evidence that LLM portrayals of LGBTQ+ people are narrower and more identity-focused than portrayals of non-queer people.

Significance. If the findings hold, this is a useful contribution to representation-harms auditing, extending the focus beyond explicit toxicity to subtle discursive othering and narrowness. The paper has concrete strengths: six open-weight models, raw data tables in the appendix, permutation-based p-values for H4, and detailed prompt templates for the generation contexts. However, the central quantitative claims for H2-H4 rest on an unvalidated LLM judge that is itself one of the evaluated models, and H1 lacks any statistical test. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main conclusion, so the significance of the result is currently conditional on additional validation evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 6, Fig. 3, Tables 3-6] The LLM-Judge is introduced in Section 6 with the statement 'Based on manual examination, we used Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct as our LLM-Judge,' but no human agreement statistics, validation set, or inter-annotator agreement are reported anywhere. Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct is also one of the six evaluated models, so any systematic tendency of this judge to over-attribute identity references, marginalization cues, or unique-perspective language to queer-coded text would inflate every delta_queer score in Fig. 3 and every topic-divergence score in Fig. 4, and could manufacture the apparent cross-model consistency. Please report human-annotated labels on a sample of responses with agreement statistics (e.g., Cohen's kappa) for Q1-Q4, test robustness using a judge that is not in the evaluated set, and state explicitly whether the judge input includes the system prompt containing the identity phrase; if it does, Q1 becomes trivially answerable from the prompt rather than from the generated text. This validation is essential for H2 and H3 and also affects H4.
  2. [Section 5, Fig. 2, Table 2] Section 5 claims 'We observed a significant discrepancy' in the frequency of 'respect', 'diverse', 'inclusive', and 'fair' between queer and non-queer responses, but no statistical test, confidence interval, or per-condition sample size is reported. The H1 keyword set is hand-picked, and the percentages in Fig. 2 are aggregates over an unspecified number of generations; without a test (e.g., chi-square or permutation over responses) or error bars, the word 'significant' is unsupported. Please report the number of responses per identity group and add an appropriate significance test or interval.
  3. [Section 8, Fig. 4, Tables 7-8] Section 8 relies on Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct to extract topic distributions from each response, sampling 50 topic lists per response. The permutation tests show that the divergence between QUEER and NOT-QUEER topic distributions is unlikely under random reassignment given the extracted topics, but they do not validate the extracted topics themselves. If the judge tends to generate identity-related topics for queer-coded text, the H4 divergences would reflect a bias of the measurement tool rather than of the evaluated models. Please validate the topic extraction against human annotations or an independent topic model, report the details of the permutation test (number of randomizations, whether the test is at response level or aggregate level, and seed), and include p-values or confidence intervals in the tables.
  4. [Section 6, Appendix B.6] Appendix B.6 contains only the topic-extraction prompt; the full Q1-Q4 judge prompts, the four in-context examples mentioned in Section 6, and the exact instructions for instantiating 'speaker|spoken-to' are not shown. Because the wording of these questions determines the measured rates, this omission prevents replication and makes it impossible to assess whether the questions are leading. Please include the complete judge prompts and examples, and state explicitly whether the identity phrase appears in the judge input.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 8, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) defines delta(c, g1, g2) with P(.|c, g1) on both sides of the Jensen-Shannon divergence; the second argument should be P(.|c, g2).
  2. [Appendix B.5.1] The Work prompts contain the phrases 'about possessive performance at work' and 'about possessive good performance at work', which appear to be typos for 'positive performance' and 'poor performance'.
  3. [Section 8.2] The sentence 'conversations involving queer patients disproportionately on sexual health or medical transition' is missing a verb; it should read 'disproportionately focus on'.
  4. [Appendix C.4] The phrase 'a singple example' should be 'a single example'.
  5. [Section 2] Hypothesis H2 is listed under both 'discursive othering' and 'narrow representations'; the overlap between these categories should be clarified or the classification made explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the hypotheses are tested empirically, with only a minor measurement-independence caveat from using Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct as both judge and evaluated model.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical, not analytic. H1 is an explicit keyword-frequency comparison over stemmed terms (Section 5); H2 and H3 are measured with a fixed LLM-judge questionnaire (Q1-Q4, Section 6); and H4 computes Jensen-Shannon divergence between topic distributions estimated by repeated sampling from that judge (Section 8). No fitted parameter is recycled into a derived equation, no identity-group label is defined in terms of the outcome, and no self-citation carries the argument. The main reflexive element is that Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct serves both as one of the six evaluated models and as the sole LLM-judge, with no human agreement statistics reported. This is a genuine measurement-validity threat: if the judge systematically over-attributes identity-related themes to queer-coded text, the reported gaps could reflect the judge rather than the target models. However, that does not make the hypotheses true by definition, nor does it reduce any equation to its inputs: the judge's labels are not fitted to the data, and the hypotheses would still be meaningful empirical claims if the judge were replaced or validated. No quoted circular step meets the reduction bar, so the score is kept low at 1 to acknowledge the minor measurement-independence caveat without treating it as circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted numeric constants appear; the paper's measurements rest on hand-chosen keywords, fixed sampling hyperparameters, and the LLM-as-judge setup. The central assumptions are the validity of the LLM-as-judge and the identity-neutrality of the prompt contexts.

free parameters (4)
  • H1 keyword set
    Hand-selected four stems ('respect', 'diverse', 'inclusive', 'fair') used to measure diversity emphasis in Section 5; no principled basis is given.
  • Temperature = 0.6
    Fixed sampling temperature for all model outputs and the judge; not swept or justified.
  • Topics per response = 10
    LLM-judge instructed to extract ten topics per response in Section 8; choice not justified.
  • Sampling repeats for topic distribution = 50
    50 samples per response used in Section 8 to estimate P(t|r); arbitrary choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption LLM-as-a-judge outputs can stand in for human evaluation of narrative themes.
    Invoked in Section 6: models aligned with human preferences are used in lieu of human evaluation; no human validation or agreement statistics are reported.
  • domain assumption Persona-context prompting elicits a model's default, representative portrayal of the specified identity.
    All experiments instantiate system prompts 'You are [identity]' or 'talking to [identity]' (Appendix B) and treat the outputs as social portrayals rather than artifacts of prompt wording.
  • domain assumption The five social contexts (housing, medical, persona, recommendation, work) are identity-neutral settings for both queer and non-queer subjects.
    Section 8.2, for example, labels medical identity talk as 'Broken Arm Syndrome', assuming it is disproportionate even though the prompt explicitly specifies a trans or queer patient.
  • domain assumption All queer identity phrases can be pooled into one QUEER group and all non-queer phrases into NOT-QUEER.
    Appendix A groups 20 queer phrases; within-group heterogeneity (trans vs gay vs nonbinary) is not analyzed.
  • standard math Jensen-Shannon divergence between LLM-extracted topic lists is a valid metric for narrative constraint.
    Section 8 defines topic divergence as JS divergence; its validity depends on the LLM topic extractor being faithful to the text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unequal Voices: How LLMs Construct Constrained Queer Narratives." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CRD3QDK5

@misc{pith2026250715585,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unequal Voices: How LLMs Construct Constrained Queer Narratives},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CRD3QDK5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15585}
}
read the original abstract

One way social groups are marginalized in discourse is that the narratives told about them often default to a narrow, stereotyped range of topics. In contrast, default groups are allowed the full complexity of human existence. We describe the constrained representations of queer people in LLM generations in terms of harmful representations, narrow representations, and discursive othering and formulate hypotheses to test for these phenomena. Our results show that LLMs are significantly limited in their portrayals of queer personas.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15585 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct when asked to assume the persona of a man, vs. when asked to assume the persona [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Frequency of occurrence of the terms "re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The heatmaps show δqueer = LLMJudge(QUEER) − LLMJudge(NOT-QUEER), thedifference between LLM-judge scores for queer vs. non-queer subject outputs across contexts and prompt types. The high δqueer across questions shows a significant difference in themes. This substantiates H2 and H3. Each plot is a heatmap for a given question and prompt type (Identity = User/Model) topics in LLM-generated outputs between any two dif… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Topic Divergence scores describing the difference in the probability distribution across topics discussed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

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. Do Language Models Know Their Slang? Queer Slang Understanding in User-Generated Content

    cs.CL 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new dataset and evaluation show that LLMs define queer slang better when given domain framing and sentential context, but still below a paraphrase-based reference bound.

  2. LLM Harms: A Taxonomy and Discussion

    cs.CY 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    This paper proposes a taxonomy of LLM harms in five categories and suggests mitigation strategies plus a dynamic auditing system for responsible development.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Friedler, Carlos Scheidegger, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian

    Mohsen Abbasi, Sorelle A. Friedler, Carlos Scheidegger, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611975673.90 Fairness in representation: quantifying stereotyping as a representational harm , page 801–809. Proceedings. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

    work page doi:10.1137/1.9781611975673.90 2019

  4. [4]

    Sara Ahmed. 2006. Queer Phenomenology: Orientations, Objects, Others . Duke University Press

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Ansara and Israel Berger

    Y. Ansara and Israel Berger. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118663219.wbegss426 Cisgenderism

    work page doi:10.1002/9781118663219.wbegss426 2016

  6. [6]

    Solon Barocas, Moritz Hardt, and Arvind Narayanan. 2023. Fairness and Machine Learning: Limitations and Opportunities . MIT Press

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Tilman Beck, Hendrik Schuff, Anne Lauscher, and Iryna Gurevych. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.eacl-long.159/ Sensitivity, performance, robustness: Deconstructing the effect of sociodemographic prompting . In Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), page 2589–...

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Lauren Berlant and Michael Warner. 1998. Sex in public. Critical Inquiry, 24(2):547–566

    work page 1998

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    O'Reilly Media, Inc

    Steven Bird, Ewan Klein, and Edward Loper. 2009. Natural language processing with Python: analyzing text with the natural language toolkit. " O'Reilly Media, Inc."

    2009

  2. [10]

    Su Lin Blodgett, Solon Barocas, Hal Daum \'e III, and Hanna Wallach. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.485 Language (technology) is power: A critical survey of bias in NLP . In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistic...

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    Myra Cheng, Tiziano Piccardi, and Diyi Yang. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.669 Compost: Characterizing and evaluating caricature in llm simulations . In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, page 10853–10875...

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Cheng-Han Chiang and Hung-yi Lee. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.599 A closer look into using large language models for automatic evaluation . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 8928--8942, Singapore. Associat...

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Kate Crawford. 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMym_BKWQzk The Trouble with Bias

    2017

  6. [14]

    Ashna Devaprasad. 2020. https://gppreview.com/2020/10/05/creating-lgbt-inclusive-workplaces-india/ Creating lgbt inclusive workplaces in india: The push for an anti-discrimination law

    2020

  7. [15]

    Eve Fleisig, Aubrie Amstutz, Chad Atalla, Su Lin Blodgett, Hal Daumé III, Alexandra Olteanu, Emily Sheng, Dan Vann, and Hanna Wallach. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.343 Fairprism: Evaluating fairness-related harms in text generation . In Proceedings of the 61...

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    i wouldn’t say offensive but

    Vinitha Gadiraju, Shaun Kane, Sunipa Dev, Alex Taylor, Ding Wang, Remi Denton, and Robin Brewer. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3593013.3593989 “i wouldn’t say offensive but...”: Disability-centered perspectives on large language models . In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conferen...

    2023

  9. [17]

    I Don’t See Myself Represented Here at All

    Sourojit Ghosh, Nina Lutz, and Aylin Caliskan. 2025. “I Don’t See Myself Represented Here at All”: User Experiences of Stable Diffusion Outputs Containing Representational Harms across Gender Identities and Nationalities, page 463–475. AAAI Press

    2025

  10. [18]

    Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, Anirudh Goyal, Anthony Hartshorn, Aobo Yang, Archi Mitra, Archie Sravankumar, Artem Korenev, Art...

    2024 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    Shashank Gupta, Vaishnavi Shrivastava, Ameet Deshpande, Ashwin Kalyan, Peter Clark, Ashish Sabharwal, and Tushar Khot. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.04892 Bias runs deep: Implicit reasoning biases in persona-assigned llms . Preprint, arXiv:2311.04892

    2024 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Heinz, Daniel M

    Michael V. Heinz, Daniel M. Mackin, Brianna M. Trudeau, Sukanya Bhattacharya, Yinzhou Wang, Haley A. Banta, Abi D. Jewett, Abigail J. Salzhauer, Tess Z. Griffin, and Nicholas C. Jacobson. 2025 b . https://doi.org/10.1056/AIoa2400802 Randomized Trial of a Generative AI Chatbot ...

    2025 doi

  13. [22]

    Gary R. Hicks. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1240 Beliefs and Stereotypes About LGBT People

    2020

  14. [23]

    Sune Qvotrup Jensen. 2011. Othering, identity formation and agency. Qualitative studies, 2(2):63--78

    2011

  15. [24]

    Reddy, Shachi Dave, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, and Sunipa Dev

    Akshita Jha, Aida Davani, Chandan K. Reddy, Shachi Dave, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, and Sunipa Dev. 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.11840 Seegull: A stereotype benchmark with broad geo-cultural coverage leveraging generative models . (arXiv:2305.11840). ArXiv:2305.11840 [cs]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Alina Leidinger and Richard Rogers. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3593013.3594062 Which stereotypes are moderated and under-moderated in search engine autocompletion? In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’23, page 1049–...

    2023

  17. [26]

    Li Lucy and David Bamman. 2021. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.nuse-1.5 Gender and representation bias in gpt-3 generated stories . In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Narrative Understanding, page 48–55, Virtual. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2021 doi

  18. [27]

    Katelyn Mei, Sonia Fereidooni, and Aylin Caliskan. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3593013.3594109 Bias against 93 stigmatized groups in masked language models and downstream sentiment classification tasks . In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, ...

    2023

  19. [28]

    Hanna Meretoja. 2017. The Ethics of Storytelling: Narrative Hermeneutics, History, and the Possible. Explorations in Narrative Psychology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York

    2017

  20. [29]

    Nanna Mik-Meyer. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715618454 Othering, ableism and disability: A discursive analysis of co-workers’ construction of colleagues with visible impairments . Human Relations, 69(6):1341–1363

    2016 doi

  21. [30]

    Safiya Umoja Noble. 2018. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism . New York university press

    2018

  22. [31]

    O’Brien, Carrie J

    Joon Sung Park, Joseph C. O’Brien, Carrie J. Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.03442 Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior . (arXiv:2304.03442). ArXiv:2304.03442 [cs]

    2023 doi arXiv

  23. [32]

    M.F. Porter. 2006. https://doi.org/10.1108/00330330610681286 An algorithm for suffix stripping . Program, 40(3):211–218

    2006 doi

  24. [33]

    Qwen, An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Yang, Jiaxi Yang, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, Kai Dang, Keming Lu, Keqin Bao, Kexin Yang, Le ...

    2025 doi arXiv

  25. [34]

    Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. 1985. The Rani of Sirmur: An essay in reading the archives . History and theory, 24(3):247--272

    1985

  26. [35]

    Perkins, Natalie Joseph, Michael K Paasche-Orlow, and Timothy Bickmore

    Ian Steenstra, Prasanth Murali, Rebecca B. Perkins, Natalie Joseph, Michael K Paasche-Orlow, and Timothy Bickmore. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613905.3650983 Engaging and entertaining adolescents in health education using llm-generated fantasy narrative games and virtual ag...

    2024

  27. [36]

    Harini Suresh and John Guttag. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1145/3465416.3483305 A framework for understanding sources of harm throughout the machine learning life cycle . In Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization, EA...

    2021

  28. [37]

    Choquette-Choo, C

    Gemma Team, Aishwarya Kamath, Johan Ferret, Shreya Pathak, Nino Vieillard, Ramona Merhej, Sarah Perrin, Tatiana Matejovicova, Alexandre Ramé, Morgane Rivière, Louis Rouillard, Thomas Mesnard, Geoffrey Cideron, Jean-bastien Grill, Sabela Ramos, Edouard Yvinec, Michelle Casbon, ...

    2025 doi arXiv

  29. [38]

    Catherine S. J. Wall, Alison J. Patev, and Eric G. Benotsch. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115748 Trans broken arm syndrome: A mixed-methods exploration of gender-related medical misattribution and invasive questioning . Social Science & Medicine, 320:115748

    2023

  30. [39]

    Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Remi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mari...

    2020 doi

  31. [40]

    Stella Young. 2014. https://www.ted.com/talks/stella_young_i_m_not_your_inspiration_thank_you_very_much/transcript [link]

    2014

  32. [41]

    Chao Zhang, Xuechen Liu, Katherine Ziska, Soobin Jeon, Chi-Lin Yu, and Ying Xu. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642647 Mathemyths: Leveraging large language models to teach mathematical language through child-ai co-creative storytelling . In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI ...

    2024

  33. [42]

    Zoie Zhao, Sophie Song, Bridget Duah, Jamie Macbeth, Scott Carter, Monica P Van, Nayeli Suseth Bravo, Matthew Klenk, Kate Sick, and Alexandre L. S. Filipowicz. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3591196.3596612 More human than human: Llm-generated narratives outperform human-llm in...

    2023

  34. [43]

    Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica

    Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. 2023. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena. Advances in Neural Information Process...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.