Auditing Cross-Cultural Consistency of Human-Annotated Labels for Recommendation Systems
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Recommendation systems increasingly depend on massive human-labeled datasets; however, the human annotators hired to generate these labels increasingly come from homogeneous backgrounds. This poses an issue when downstream predictive models -- based on these labels -- are applied globally to a heterogeneous set of users. We study this disconnect with respect to the labels themselves, asking whether they are ``consistently conceptualized'' across annotators of different demographics. In a case study of video game labels, we conduct a survey on 5,174 gamers, identify a subset of inconsistently conceptualized game labels, perform causal analyses, and suggest both cultural and linguistic reasons for cross-country differences in label annotation. We further demonstrate that predictive models of game annotations perform better on global train sets as opposed to homogeneous (single-country) train sets. Finally, we provide a generalizable framework for practitioners to audit their own data annotation processes for consistent label conceptualization, and encourage practitioners to consider global inclusivity in recommendation systems starting from the early stages of annotator recruitment and data-labeling.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 10 May 2023.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 4; 2026: 3.
9 papers.
- 2026Counting on Consensus: Selecting the Right Inter-annotator Agreement Metric for NLP Annotation and Evaluationcited by 11
- 2025Operationalizing Pluralistic Values in Large Language Model Alignment Reveals Trade-offs in Safety, Inclusivity, and Model Behaviorcited by 8
- 2024BLIP: Facilitating the Exploration of Undesirable Consequences of Digital Technologiescited by 6
- 2024Law and the Emerging Political Economy of Algorithmic Auditscited by 5
- 2026The Consensus Trap: Dissecting Subjectivity and the "Ground Truth" Illusion in Data Annotationcited by 1
- 2025Investigating the Capabilities and Limitations of Machine Learning for Identifying Bias in English Language Data with Information and Heritage Professionalscited by 0
- 2025Fairness-in-the-Workflow: How Machine Learning Practitioners at Big Tech Companies Approach Fairness in Recommender Systemscited by 0
- 2025Advancing Data Equity: Practitioner Responsibility and Accountability in NLP Data Practicescited by 0
- 2026WhoSaidIt: Human-LLM Collaborative Annotation for Text-Based Multilingual Speaker-Attribute Classificationcited by 0
- 2026WhoSaidIt: Human-LLM Collaborative Annotation for Text-Based Multilingual Speaker-Attribute Classification25 May 2026
- 2026Counting on Consensus: Selecting the Right Inter-annotator Agreement Metric for NLP Annotation and Evaluation6 Mar 2026
- 2026The Consensus Trap: Dissecting Subjectivity and the "Ground Truth" Illusion in Data Annotation11 Feb 2026
- 2025Operationalizing Pluralistic Values in Large Language Model Alignment Reveals Trade-offs in Safety, Inclusivity, and Model Behavior18 Nov 2025
- 2025Advancing Data Equity: Practitioner Responsibility and Accountability in NLP Data Practices13 Aug 2025
- 2025Fairness-in-the-Workflow: How Machine Learning Practitioners at Big Tech Companies Approach Fairness in Recommender Systems26 May 2025
- 2025Investigating the Capabilities and Limitations of Machine Learning for Identifying Bias in English Language Data with Information and Heritage Professionals1 Apr 2025
- 2024BLIP: Facilitating the Exploration of Undesirable Consequences of Digital Technologies10 May 2024
- 2024Law and the Emerging Political Economy of Algorithmic Audits3 Apr 2024