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

Nora Wai

dblp:344/3716 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
0000-0001-6305-0716ORCID · reported

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 · 50% Collaborative and social computing · 50%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Trustworthy machine learning · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Human-AI interaction
algorithmic auditing
0.712023
Participation and Division of Labor in User-Driven Algorithm Audits: How Do Everyday Users Work together to Surface Algorithmic Harms? · CHI 2023
Collaborative and social computing › civic engagement
collective action
0.712023
Participation and Division of Labor in User-Driven Algorithm Audits: How Do Everyday Users Work together to Surface Algorithmic Harms? · CHI 2023
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › fairness
algorithmic bias
0.212023
Participation and Division of Labor in User-Driven Algorithm Audits: How Do Everyday Users Work together to Surface Algorithmic Harms? · CHI 2023

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

social media analysis · 1.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 Participation and Division of Labor in User-Driven Algorithm Audits: How Do Everyday Users Work together to Surface Algorithmic Harms?
abstract
Recent years have witnessed an interesting phenomenon in which users come together to interrogate potentially harmful algorithmic behaviors they encounter in their everyday lives. Researchers have started to develop theoretical and empirical understandings of these user-driven audits, with a hope to harness the power of users in detecting harmful machine behaviors. However, little is known about users’ participation and their division of labor in these audits, which are essential to support these collective efforts in the future. Through collecting and analyzing 17,984 tweets from four recent cases of user-driven audits, we shed light on patterns of users’ participation and engagement, especially with the top contributors in each case. We also identified the various roles users’ generated content played in these audits, including hypothesizing, data collection, amplification, contextualization, and escalation. We discuss implications for designing tools to support user-driven audits and users who labor to raise awareness of algorithm bias.
Rena Li, Sara Kingsley, Chelsea Fan, Proteeti Sinha, Nora Wai, Jaimie Lee, Hong Shen 0004, Motahhare Eslami, Jason I. Hong
CHI5