Analyzing the Effects of Annotator Gender across NLP Tasks
Recent studies have shown that for subjective annotation tasks, the demographics, lived experiences, and identity of annotators can have a large impact on how items are labeled. We expand on this work, hypothesizing that gender may correlate with differences in annotations for a number of NLP benchmarks, including those that are fairly subjective (e.g., affect in text) and those that are typically considered to be objective (e.g., natural language inference). We develop a robust framework to test for differences in annotation across genders for four benchmark datasets. While our results largely show a lack of statistically significant differences in annotation by males and females for these tasks, the framework can be used to analyze differences in annotation between various other demographic groups in future work. Finally, we note that most datasets are collected without annotator demographics and released only in aggregate form; we call on the community to consider annotator demographics as data is collected, and to release dis-aggregated data to allow for further work analyzing variability among annotators.
Code (1)
Tasks
Natural Language InferenceSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Don't Take it Personally: Analyzing Gender and Age Differences in Ratings of Online Humor
Computational humor detection systems rarely model the subjectivity of humor responses, or consider alternative reactions to humor - namely offense. We analyzed a large dataset of humor and offense ratings by male and fe…
Humor DetectionDo Perceived Gender Biases in Retrieval Results Affect Relevance Judgements?
This work investigates the effect of gender-stereotypical biases in the content of retrieved results on the relevance judgement of users/annotators. In particular, since relevance in information retrieval (IR) is a multi…
Information RetrievalRetrievalAre we chasing ghosts? Quantifying unattributable polarization, and attributing the rest to annotator groups
Standard agreement metrics often fail to capture systematic differences in opinion between minority and majority-group annotators, jeopardizing tasks such as hate speech and toxicity detection. Polarization has recently …
Diverse, but Divisive: LLMs Can Exaggerate Gender Differences in Opinion Related to Harms of Misinformation
The pervasive spread of misinformation and disinformation poses a significant threat to society. Professional fact-checkers play a key role in addressing this threat, but the vast scale of the problem forces them to prio…
Fact CheckingLanguage ModellingLarge Language ModelMisinformationReasonScaffold: A Scaffolded Reasoning-based Annotation Protocol for Human-AI Co-Annotation
Human annotation is central to NLP evaluation, yet subjective tasks often exhibit substantial variability across annotators. While large language models (LLMs) can provide structured reasoning to support annotation, thei…