Alex Taylor

Mingyu Derek Ma, Alexander K. Taylor, Wei Wang et al.

Event extraction for the clinical domain is an under-explored research area. The lack of training data along with the high volume of domain-specific terminologies with vague entity boundaries makes the task especially challenging. In this paper, we introduce DICE, a robust and data-efficient generative model for clinical event extraction. DICE frames event extraction as a conditional generation problem and introduces a contrastive learning objective to accurately decide the boundaries of biomedical mentions. DICE also trains an auxiliary mention identification task jointly with event extraction tasks to better identify entity mention boundaries, and further introduces special markers to incorporate identified entity mentions as trigger and argument candidates for their respective tasks. To benchmark clinical event extraction, we compose MACCROBAT-EE, the first clinical event extraction dataset with argument annotation, based on an existing clinical information extraction dataset MACCROBAT. Our experiments demonstrate state-of-the-art performances of DICE for clinical and news domain event extraction, especially under low data settings.

Srravya Chandhiramowuli, Alex Taylor, Sara Heitlinger et al.

In this paper, we examine the work of data annotation. Specifically, we focus on the role of counting or quantification in organising annotation work. Based on an ethnographic study of data annotation in two outsourcing centres in India, we observe that counting practices and its associated logics are an integral part of day-to-day annotation activities. In particular, we call attention to the presumption of total countability observed in annotation - the notion that everything, from tasks, datasets and deliverables, to workers, work time, quality and performance, can be managed by applying the logics of counting. To examine this, we draw on sociological and socio-technical scholarship on quantification and develop the lens of a 'regime of counting' that makes explicit the specific counts, practices, actors and structures that underpin the pervasive counting in annotation. We find that within the AI supply chain and data work, counting regimes aid the assertion of authority by the AI clients (also called requesters) over annotation processes, constituting them as reductive, standardised, and homogenous. We illustrate how this has implications for i) how annotation work and workers get valued, ii) the role human discretion plays in annotation, and iii) broader efforts to introduce accountable and more just practices in AI. Through these implications, we illustrate the limits of operating within the logic of total countability. Instead, we argue for a view of counting as partial - located in distinct geographies, shaped by specific interests and accountable in only limited ways. This, we propose, sets the stage for a fundamentally different orientation to counting and what counts in data annotation.

Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Christopher Homan, Lora Aroyo et al.

Human annotation plays a core role in machine learning -- annotations for supervised models, safety guardrails for generative models, and human feedback for reinforcement learning, to cite a few avenues. However, the fact that many of these human annotations are inherently subjective is often overlooked. Recent work has demonstrated that ignoring rater subjectivity (typically resulting in rater disagreement) is problematic within specific tasks and for specific subgroups. Generalizable methods to harness rater disagreement and thus understand the socio-cultural leanings of subjective tasks remain elusive. In this paper, we propose GRASP, a comprehensive disagreement analysis framework to measure group association in perspectives among different rater sub-groups, and demonstrate its utility in assessing the extent of systematic disagreements in two datasets: (1) safety annotations of human-chatbot conversations, and (2) offensiveness annotations of social media posts, both annotated by diverse rater pools across different socio-demographic axes. Our framework (based on disagreement metrics) reveals specific rater groups that have significantly different perspectives than others on certain tasks, and helps identify demographic axes that are crucial to consider in specific task contexts.

Holger Schnädelbach, Tom Lodge, Tim Coughlan et al.

Engaging residential communities with each other and with management remains a challenge. Housing providers deploy a variety of engagement strategies, some of which are supported by digital technologies. Their individual success is varied and integrated, multipronged approaches are seen to be more successful. As part of those, it is important to address people's perceptions of community and places, as well as any practical issues that they face. We present the design and evaluation of Photo Screen, a situated, public photo taking and viewing screen which was deployed in the context of a new flagship housing estate as part of a range of community engagement measures. In a new context, we confirm the high levels of engagement that can be achieved with this simple mechanism. We propose that photo 'tagging' might offer a second-stage engagement mechanism and enable meaningful dialogue between residents and management. Finally, we discuss how this playful activity allowed residents to positively shape the perception of their community.