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.

Lucy Havens

dblp:239/9371 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
0000-0001-8158-6039ORCID · reported

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

Human-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.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Trustworthy machine learning · 100%
Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Collaborative and social computing · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › fairness
bias identification
0.912025
Investigating the Capabilities and Limitations of Machine Learning for Identifying Bias in English Language Data with Information and Heritage Professionals · CHI 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness and bias
0.912025
Investigating the Capabilities and Limitations of Machine Learning for Identifying Bias in English Language Data with Information and Heritage Professionals · CHI 2025

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

workshop · 1.7machine learning · 1.7mixed-methods · 0.9mixed methods · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Investigating the Capabilities and Limitations of Machine Learning for Identifying Bias in English Language Data with Information and Heritage Professionals
abstract
Despite numerous efforts to mitigate their biases, ML systems continue to harm already-marginalized people. While predominant ML approaches assume bias can be removed and fair models can be created, we show that these are not always possible, nor desirable, goals. We reframe the problem of ML bias by creating models to identify biased language, drawing attention to a dataset's biases rather than trying to remove them. Then, through a workshop, we evaluated the models for a specific use case: workflows of information and heritage professionals. Our findings demonstrate the limitations of ML for identifying bias due to its contextual nature, the way in which approaches to mitigating it can simultaneously privilege and oppress different communities, and its inevitability. We demonstrate the need to expand ML approaches to bias and fairness, providing a mixed-methods approach to investigating the feasibility of removing bias or achieving fairness in a given ML use case.
Lucy Havens, Benjamin Bach, Melissa Terras, Beatrice Alex
CHI1