V. A. Traag

V. A. Traag, L. Waltman

The study of biases, such as gender or racial biases, is an important topic in the social and behavioural sciences. However, the literature does not always clearly define the concept. Definitions of bias are often ambiguous or not provided at all. To study biases in a precise manner, it is important to have a well-defined concept of bias. We propose to define bias as a direct causal effect that is unjustified. We propose to define the closely related concept of disparity as a direct or indirect causal effect that includes a bias. Our proposed definitions can be used to study biases and disparities in a more rigorous and systematic way. We compare our definitions of bias and disparity with various criteria of fairness introduced in the artificial intelligence literature. In addition, we discuss how our definitions relate to discrimination. We illustrate our definitions of bias and disparity in two case studies, focusing on gender bias in science and racial bias in police shootings. Our proposed definitions aim to contribute to a better appreciation of the causal intricacies of studies of biases and disparities. We hope that this will also promote an improved understanding of the policy implications of such studies.

V. A. Traag, R. Reinanda, G. van Klinken

Social networks have been of much interest in recent years. We here focus on a network structure derived from co-occurrences of people in traditional newspaper media. We find three clear deviations from what can be expected in a random graph. First, the average degree in the empirical network is much lower than expected, and the average weight of a link much higher than expected. Secondly, high degree nodes attract disproportionately much weight. Thirdly, relatively much of the weight seems to concentrate between high degree nodes. We believe this can be explained by the fact that most people tend to co-occur repeatedly with the same people. We create a model that replicates these observations qualitatively based on two self-reinforcing processes: (1) more frequently occurring persons are more likely to occur again; and (2) if two people co-occur frequently, they are more likely to co-occur again. This suggest that the media tends to focus on people that are already in the news, and that they reinforce existing co-occurrences.