Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Jared Katzman

dblp:182/2488 · also Jared Lee Katzman · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
2as first author
2since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0006-9861-9304ORCID · verified

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Design research and methods · 50% Collaborative and social computing · 50%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Trustworthy machine learning · 56% Image recognition and object detection · 44%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Computational social science and digital humanities · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Design research and methods
participatory design
1.012026
Designing for Proactive Accountability: Lessons on Governing Technology from Detroit's Food Sovereignty Movement · CHI 2026
Collaborative and social computing
socio-technical systems
1.012026
Designing for Proactive Accountability: Lessons on Governing Technology from Detroit's Food Sovereignty Movement · CHI 2026
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness
0.712023
Taxonomizing and Measuring Representational Harms: A Look at Image Tagging · AAAI 2023
Computer vision › Image recognition and object detection
image annotation
0.712023
Taxonomizing and Measuring Representational Harms: A Look at Image Tagging · AAAI 2023
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › fairness
bias mitigation
0.212023
Taxonomizing and Measuring Representational Harms: A Look at Image Tagging · AAAI 2023

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

speculative design study · 2.0fairness measurement taxonomy · 0.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 Designing for Proactive Accountability: Lessons on Governing Technology from Detroit's Food Sovereignty Movement
abstract
Governance structures for new technologies are frequently top-down, reactive, and informally enforced, leaving marginalized communities with little power to address harms until after they occur. To address these limitations, we introduce Proactive Accountability, a conceptual framework theorizing that effective governance must be community-led, formally enforced, and continually maintained. We explore these principles through a speculative design study with Detroit’s food sovereignty community, in which participants identified community-owned cooperatives—described as “ancestral technologies”—as a model for redistributing power within a capitalist economy. Synthesizing these theoretical and empirical insights, we introduce the Designing for Proactive Accountability (D4PA) framework, providing implications for how designers can operationalize the goals of proactive accountability into HCI research and design projects. Finally, we contribute a future research agenda that positions cooperatives not merely as beneficiaries of design, but as sites of inquiry for understanding how to institutionalize justice-oriented democratic governance of sociotechnical systems.
Jared Katzman, Ben Green 0002, Tawanna Dillahunt
CHI1
2023 Taxonomizing and Measuring Representational Harms: A Look at Image Tagging
abstract
In this paper, we examine computational approaches for measuring the "fairness" of image tagging systems, finding that they cluster into five distinct categories, each with its own analytic foundation. We also identify a range of normative concerns that are often collapsed under the terms "unfairness," "bias," or even "discrimination" when discussing problematic cases of image tagging. Specifically, we identify four types of representational harms that can be caused by image tagging systems, providing concrete examples of each. We then consider how different computational measurement approaches map to each of these types, demonstrating that there is not a one-to-one mapping. Our findings emphasize that no single measurement approach will be definitive and that it is not possible to infer from the use of a particular measurement approach which type of harm was intended to be measured. Lastly, equipped with this more granular understanding of the types of representational harms that can be caused by image tagging systems, we show that attempts to mitigate some of these types of harms may be in tension with one another.
Jared Katzman, Angelina Wang, Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, Su Lin Blodgett, Kristen Laird, Hanna M. Wallach, Solon Barocas
AAAI1