Het woord ‘bias’ komt naar voren in zowel maatschappelijk als wetenschappelijk debat over de inzet van artificiële intelligentie (ai). Het verwijst doorgaans naar een vooroordeel dat iets of iemand vaak onbedoeld heeft. Wanneer dit vooroordeel leidt tot een afwijking in besluitvorming vergeleken met een situatie wanneer dit vooroordeel er niet zou zijn, dan is een bias doorgaans onwenselijk.
LINK
Hoe ziet de BIAS bij werkgevers eruit ten aanzien van mensen met een minder geprivilegieerde positie op de Nederlandse Arbeidsmarkt?
DOCUMENT
Op 25 november presenteerden de VU en Hogeschool Inholland een onderzoek naar kansenongelijkheid op de werkvloer. Zij onderzochten hoe institutionele bias bijdraagt aan ongelijke kansen op de Nederlandse arbeidsmarkt. WOMEN Inc. ondersteunt dit type onderzoek en kijkt naar hoe we de kennis uit wetenschappelijk onderzoek kunnen vertalen naar de praktijk om met de resultaten maatschappelijke impact te creëren. Als werkgever zijn deze resultaten van belang om van jouw organisatie een inclusievere werkomgeving te maken.
LINK
What causes firms to behave the way they do when they face different investment opportunities? We argue that both people and processes are behind the decision-making of project implementation. Member and professional CEOs of cooperatives differ regarding their managerial vision towards upstream and downstream projects. Cooperatives with member CEOs are upstream focused and it is reflected by the cascading effect of negative vision bias towards downstream projects. When downstream activities become more important, cooperatives need to replace the member CEOs with professional CEOs. However, a cooperative with a professional CEO may still be in a disadvantageous position if the member-dominated Board of Directors' negative bias towards downstream projects is too strong, which may result in an investor owned firm being the efficient governance structure.
DOCUMENT
This paper conducted a preliminary study of reviewing and exploring bias strategies using a framework of a different discipline: change management. The hypothesis here is: If the major problem of implicit bias strategies is that they do not translate into actual changes in behaviors, then it could be helpful to learn from studies that have contributed to successful change interventions such as reward management, social neuroscience, health behavioral change, and cognitive behavioral therapy. The result of this integrated approach is: (1) current bias strategies can be improved and new ones can be developed with insight from adjunct study fields in change management; (2) it could be more sustainable to invest in a holistic and proactive bias strategy approach that targets the social environment, eliminating the very condition under which biases arise; and (3) while implicit biases are automatic, future studies should invest more on strategies that empower people as “change agents” who can act proactively to regulate the very environment that gives rise to their biased thoughts and behaviors.
DOCUMENT
It is crucial that ASR systems can handle the wide range of variations in speech of speakers from different demographic groups, with different speaking styles, and of speakers with (dis)abilities. A potential quality-of-service harm arises when ASR systems do not perform equally well for everyone. ASR systems may exhibit bias against certain types of speech, such as non-native accents, different age groups and gender. In this study, we evaluate two widely-used neural network-based architectures: Wav2vec2 and Whisper on potential biases for Dutch speakers. We used the Dutch speech corpus JASMIN as a test set containing read and conversational speech in a human-machine interaction setting. The results reveal a significant bias against non-natives, children and elderly and some regional dialects. The ASR systems generally perform slightly better for women than for men.
MULTIFILE
Valuation judgement bias has been a research topic for several years due to its proclaimed effect on valuation accuracy. However, little is known on the emphasis of literature on judgement bias, with regard to, for instance, research methodologies, research context and robustness of research evidence. A synthesis of available research will establish consistency in the current knowledge base on valuer judgement, identify future research opportunities and support decision-making policy by educational and regulatory stakeholders how to cope with judgement bias. This article therefore, provides a systematic review of empirical research on real estate valuer judgement over the last 30 years. Based on a number of inclusion and exclusion criteria, we have systematically analysed 32 relevant papers on valuation judgement bias. Although we find some consistency in evidence, we also find the underlying research to be biased; the methodology adopted is dominated by a quantitative approach; research context is skewed by timing and origination; and research evidence seems fragmented and needs replication. In order to obtain a deeper understanding of valuation judgement processes and thus extend the current knowledge base, we advocate more use of qualitative research methods and scholars to adopt an interpretative paradigm when studying judgement behaviour.
DOCUMENT
Previous research shows that automatic tendency to approach alcohol plays a causal role in problematic alcohol use and can be retrained by Approach Bias Modification (ApBM). ApBM has been shown to be effective for patients diagnosed with alcohol use disorder (AUD) in inpatient treatment. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of adding an online ApBM to treatment as usual (TAU) in an outpatient setting compared to receiving TAU with an online placebo training. 139 AUD patients receiving face-to-face or online treatment as usual (TAU) participated in the study. The patients were randomized to an active or placebo version of 8 sessions of online ApBM over a 5-week period. The weekly consumed standard units of alcohol (primary outcome) was measured at pre-and post-training, 3 and 6 months follow-up. Approach tendency was measured pre-and-post ApBM training. No additional effect of ApBM was found on alcohol intake, nor other outcomes such as craving, depression, anxiety, or stress. A significant reduction of the alcohol approach bias was found. This research showed that approach bias retraining in AUD patients in an outpatient treatment setting reduces the tendency to approach alcohol, but this training effect does not translate into a significant difference in alcohol reduction between groups. Explanations for the lack of effects of ApBM on alcohol consumption are treatment goal and severity of AUD. Future ApBM research should target outpatients with an abstinence goal and offer alternative, more user-friendly modes of delivering ApBM training.
DOCUMENT
Albeit the widespread application of recommender systems (RecSys) in our daily lives, rather limited research has been done on quantifying unfairness and biases present in such systems. Prior work largely focuses on determining whether a RecSys is discriminating or not but does not compute the amount of bias present in these systems. Biased recommendations may lead to decisions that can potentially have adverse effects on individuals, sensitive user groups, and society. Hence, it is important to quantify these biases for fair and safe commercial applications of these systems. This paper focuses on quantifying popularity bias that stems directly from the output of RecSys models, leading to over recommendation of popular items that are likely to be misaligned with user preferences. Four metrics to quantify popularity bias in RescSys over time in dynamic setting across different sensitive user groups have been proposed. These metrics have been demonstrated for four collaborative filteri ng based RecSys algorithms trained on two commonly used benchmark datasets in the literature. Results obtained show that the metrics proposed provide a comprehensive understanding of growing disparities in treatment between sensitive groups over time when used conjointly.
DOCUMENT
Reporting of research findings is often selective. This threatens the validity of the published body of knowledge if the decision to report depends on the nature of the results. The evidence derived from studies on causes and mechanisms underlying selective reporting may help to avoid or reduce reporting bias. Such research should be guided by a theoretical framework of possible causal pathways that lead to reporting bias. We build upon a classification of determinants of selective reporting that we recently developed in a systematic review of the topic. The resulting theoretical framework features four clusters of causes. There are two clusters of necessary causes: (A) motivations (e.g. a preference for particular findings) and (B) means (e.g. a flexible study design). These two combined represent a sufficient cause for reporting bias to occur. The framework also features two clusters of component causes: (C) conflicts and balancing of interests referring to the individual or the team, and (D) pressures from science and society. The component causes may modify the effect of the necessary causes or may lead to reporting bias mediated through the necessary causes. Our theoretical framework is meant to inspire further research and to create awareness among researchers and end-users of research about reporting bias and its causes.
DOCUMENT
![Causes of reporting bias: a theoretical framework [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]](https://publinova-harvester-content-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbnails/files/previews/pdf/20250619194946164936.68f_a863_4e94_84cd_cf2a63540cea_18310_jenny_van_der_stee-thumbnail-400x300.png)
