[Re] Badder Seeds: Reproducing the Evaluation of Lexical Methods for Bias Measurement
A replication examining lexical methods for measuring bias and sensitivity to seed choices.
External publication. Published by its original venue; not published in our journal.
How much does the selected bias metric vary across prespecified seed-set perturbations compared with its sampling uncertainty?
Freeze word lists, embeddings and metric formulas independently, retain all perturbations, and avoid treating one lexical score as a complete measure of social harm.
What you could produce
- Versioned protocol, input and environment manifest, and independent per-case comparison table including uncertainty and incomplete cases.
Before you use it
- PyTorch (named in journal metadata; dependency version not checked)
Limits to keep in view
- No research code was executed; no independent scientific verification has been performed.
- The current qualified pilot is self-contained Python 3.13 with a 90-second author deadline. This article's environment has not been qualified for that path.
- Published source metadata and a historical review do not establish compatibility, successful reproduction, operator independence or current scientific correctness.
- Dependencies named in metadata are not available under the current standard-library-only pilot; a new qualified environment is required.
Source and permission context
van der Togt, Jille; Tiyavorabun, Lea; Rosati, Matteo; Starace, Giulio. [Re] Badder Seeds: Reproducing the Evaluation of Lexical Methods for Bias Measurement. ReScience C 8(2), #40; 10.5281/zenodo.6574705.
Rights need review. Review the scope and upstream conditions before reuse.
manuscript · CC-BY-4.0
The exact Zenodo record cited by the journal declares cc-by-4.0; the journal separately identifies published manuscripts as CC BY. This records manuscript rights, not separate code/data licenses or archive contents.
Inspect the license evidence ↗Still unresolved
- The associated code's exact license and version-specific third-party notices have not been independently checked.
- Data licenses, permissions, consent restrictions and redistribution conditions have not been independently checked.
- Artifacts are referenced only; PDF/archive contents, dependency locks and bytes have not been inspected or executed.