量化分级分类系统中的偏差。

Q1 Social Sciences
Open Mind Pub Date : 2024-03-01 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1162/opmi_a_00121
Katie Warburton, Charles Kemp, Yang Xu, Lea Frermann
{"title":"量化分级分类系统中的偏差。","authors":"Katie Warburton, Charles Kemp, Yang Xu, Lea Frermann","doi":"10.1162/opmi_a_00121","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Categorization is ubiquitous in human cognition and society, and shapes how we perceive and understand the world. Because categories reflect the needs and perspectives of their creators, no category system is entirely objective, and inbuilt biases can have harmful social consequences. Here we propose methods for measuring biases in hierarchical systems of categories, a common form of category organization with multiple levels of abstraction. We illustrate these methods by quantifying the extent to which library classification systems are biased in favour of western concepts and male authors. We analyze a large library data set including more than 3 million books organized into thousands of categories, and find that categories related to religion show greater western bias than do categories related to literature or history, and that books written by men are distributed more broadly across library classification systems than are books written by women. We also find that the Dewey Decimal Classification shows a greater level of bias than does the Library of Congress Classification. Although we focus on library classification as a case study, our methods are general, and can be used to measure biases in both natural and institutional category systems across a range of domains.</p>","PeriodicalId":32558,"journal":{"name":"Open Mind","volume":"8 ","pages":"102-130"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10898782/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantifying Bias in Hierarchical Category Systems.\",\"authors\":\"Katie Warburton, Charles Kemp, Yang Xu, Lea Frermann\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/opmi_a_00121\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Categorization is ubiquitous in human cognition and society, and shapes how we perceive and understand the world. Because categories reflect the needs and perspectives of their creators, no category system is entirely objective, and inbuilt biases can have harmful social consequences. Here we propose methods for measuring biases in hierarchical systems of categories, a common form of category organization with multiple levels of abstraction. We illustrate these methods by quantifying the extent to which library classification systems are biased in favour of western concepts and male authors. We analyze a large library data set including more than 3 million books organized into thousands of categories, and find that categories related to religion show greater western bias than do categories related to literature or history, and that books written by men are distributed more broadly across library classification systems than are books written by women. We also find that the Dewey Decimal Classification shows a greater level of bias than does the Library of Congress Classification. Although we focus on library classification as a case study, our methods are general, and can be used to measure biases in both natural and institutional category systems across a range of domains.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":32558,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Mind\",\"volume\":\"8 \",\"pages\":\"102-130\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10898782/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Mind\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00121\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Mind","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00121","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

分类在人类认知和社会中无处不在,它塑造了我们感知和理解世界的方式。由于类别反映了其创建者的需求和观点,因此没有一个类别系统是完全客观的,而固有的偏见可能会产生有害的社会后果。在这里,我们提出了测量分层类别系统中偏见的方法,这是一种常见的多层次抽象类别组织形式。我们通过量化图书馆分类系统偏向西方概念和男性作者的程度来说明这些方法。我们分析了一个大型图书馆数据集,其中包括按数千个类别编排的 300 多万册图书,发现与文学或历史相关的类别相比,与宗教相关的类别表现出更大的西方偏见,而且男性撰写的图书在图书馆分类系统中的分布比女性撰写的图书更广泛。我们还发现,杜威十进分类法比美国国会图书馆分类法显示出更大程度的偏见。尽管我们将图书馆分类法作为一个案例进行研究,但我们的方法是通用的,可用于测量自然分类系统和机构分类系统在一系列领域中的偏差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quantifying Bias in Hierarchical Category Systems.

Categorization is ubiquitous in human cognition and society, and shapes how we perceive and understand the world. Because categories reflect the needs and perspectives of their creators, no category system is entirely objective, and inbuilt biases can have harmful social consequences. Here we propose methods for measuring biases in hierarchical systems of categories, a common form of category organization with multiple levels of abstraction. We illustrate these methods by quantifying the extent to which library classification systems are biased in favour of western concepts and male authors. We analyze a large library data set including more than 3 million books organized into thousands of categories, and find that categories related to religion show greater western bias than do categories related to literature or history, and that books written by men are distributed more broadly across library classification systems than are books written by women. We also find that the Dewey Decimal Classification shows a greater level of bias than does the Library of Congress Classification. Although we focus on library classification as a case study, our methods are general, and can be used to measure biases in both natural and institutional category systems across a range of domains.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Open Mind
Open Mind Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
53 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信