Brittany I Davidson

CY
h-index26
5papers
16citations
Novelty17%
AI Score32

5 Papers

6.5CYMar 27
The Accountability Paradox: How Platform API Restrictions Undermine AI Transparency Mandates

Florian A. D. Burnat, Brittany I. Davidson

Recent application programming interface (API) restrictions on major social media platforms challenge compliance with the EU Digital Services Act [20], which mandates data access for algorithmic transparency. We develop a structured audit framework to assess the growing misalignment between regulatory requirements and platform implementations. Our comparative analysis of X/Twitter, Reddit, TikTok, and Meta identifies critical ``audit blind-spots'' where platform content moderation and algorithmic amplification remain inaccessible to independent verification. Our findings reveal an ``accountability paradox'': as platforms increasingly rely on AI systems, they simultaneously restrict the capacity for independent oversight. We propose targeted policy interventions aligned with the AI Risk Management Framework of the National Institute of Standards and Technology [80], emphasizing federated access models and enhanced regulatory enforcement.

1.2CYOct 30, 2023
Sentiment Analysis in Digital Spaces: An Overview of Reviews

Laura E. M. Ayravainen, Joanne Hinds, Brittany I. Davidson

Sentiment analysis (SA) is commonly applied to digital textual data, revealing insight into opinions and feelings. Many systematic reviews have summarized existing work, but often overlook discussions of validity and scientific practices. Here, we present an overview of reviews, synthesizing 38 systematic reviews, containing 2,275 primary studies. We devise a bespoke quality assessment framework designed to assess the rigor and quality of systematic review methodologies and reporting standards. Our findings show diverse applications and methods, limited reporting rigor, and challenges over time. We discuss how future research and practitioners can address these issues and highlight their importance across numerous applications.

1.2CYJan 13
Regulatory gray areas of LLM Terms

Brittany I. Davidson, Kate Muir, Florian A. D. Burnat et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into academic research pipelines; however, the Terms of Service governing their use remain under-examined. We present a comparative analysis of the Terms of Service of five major LLM providers (Anthropic, DeepSeek, Google, OpenAI, and xAI) collected in November 2025. Our analysis reveals substantial variation in the stringency and specificity of usage restrictions for general users and researchers. We identify specific complexities for researchers in security research, computational social sciences, and psychological studies. We identify `regulatory gray areas' where Terms of Service create uncertainty for legitimate use. We contribute a publicly available resource comparing terms across platforms (OSF) and discuss implications for general users and researchers navigating this evolving landscape.

1.2CYMay 4, 2023
The Politics of Language Choice: How the Russian-Ukrainian War Influences Ukrainians' Language Use on Twitter

Daniel Racek, Brittany I. Davidson, Paul W. Thurner et al.

The use of language is innately political and often a vehicle of cultural identity as well as the basis for nation building. Here, we examine language choice and tweeting activity of Ukrainian citizens based on more than 4 million geo-tagged tweets from over 62,000 users before and during the Russian-Ukrainian War, from January 2020 to October 2022. Using statistical models, we disentangle sample effects, arising from the in- and outflux of users on Twitter, from behavioural effects, arising from behavioural changes of the users. We observe a steady shift from the Russian language towards the Ukrainian language already before the war, which drastically speeds up with its outbreak. We attribute these shifts in large part to users' behavioural changes. Notably, we find that more than half of the Russian-tweeting users shift towards Ukrainian as a result of the war.

1.2CYFeb 4, 2022
On the role of technology in human-dog relationships: a future of nightmares or dreams?

Dirk van der Linden, Brittany I. Davidson, Orit Hirsch-Matsioulas et al.

Digital technologies that help people take care of their dogs are becoming more widespread. Yet, little research explores what the role of technology in the human-dog relationship should be. We conducted a qualitative study incorporating quantitative and thematic analysis of 155 UK dog owners reflecting on their daily routines and technology's role in it, disentangling the what-where-why of interspecies routines and activities, technological desires, and rationales for technological support across common human-dog activities. We found that increasingly entangled daily routines lead to close multi-species households where dog owners conceptualize technology as having a role to support them in giving care to their dogs. When confronted with the role of technology across various activities, only chores like cleaning up after their dogs lead to largely positive considerations, while activities that benefit themselves like walking together lead to largely negative considerations. For other activities, whether playing, training, or feeding, attitudes remain diverse. In general, across all activities both a nightmare scenario of technology taking the human's role and in doing so disentangling the human-dog bond, as well as a dream scenario of technology augmenting human abilities arise. We argue that the current trajectory of digital technology for pets is increasingly focused on enabling remote interactions, an example of the nightmare scenario in our thematic analysis. It is important to redirect this trajectory to one of technology predominantly supporting us in becoming better and more informed caregivers.