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

Aditi Dhabalia

dblp:319/3723 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none

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

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 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
Human-AI interaction · 77% Collaborative and social computing · 23%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Human-AI interaction
algorithmic auditing
0.612022
Toward User-Driven Algorithm Auditing: Investigating users' strategies for uncovering harmful algorithmic behavior · CHI 2022
Collaborative and social computing › team collaboration
collaborative sensemaking
0.212022
Toward User-Driven Algorithm Auditing: Investigating users' strategies for uncovering harmful algorithmic behavior · CHI 2022

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

workshop · 0.6think-aloud interviews · 0.6diary study · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Toward User-Driven Algorithm Auditing: Investigating users' strategies for uncovering harmful algorithmic behavior
abstract
Recent work in HCI suggests that users can be powerful in surfacing harmful algorithmic behaviors that formal auditing approaches fail to detect. However, it is not well understood how users are often able to be so effective, nor how we might support more effective user-driven auditing. To investigate, we conducted a series of think-aloud interviews, diary studies, and workshops, exploring how users find and make sense of harmful behaviors in algorithmic systems, both individually and collectively. Based on our findings, we present a process model capturing the dynamics of and influences on users’ search and sensemaking behaviors. We find that 1) users’ search strategies and interpretations are heavily guided by their personal experiences with and exposures to societal bias; and 2) collective sensemaking amongst multiple users is invaluable in user-driven algorithm audits. We offer directions for the design of future methods and tools that can better support user-driven auditing.
Alicia DeVos, Aditi Dhabalia, Hong Shen 0004, Kenneth Holstein, Motahhare Eslami
CHI2