ArticleScientific reports2025
High risk of political bias in black box emotion inference models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Reducing social biases in text-based emotion prediction using semantic blinding and semantic propagation graph neural networks.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This paper investigates the presence of political bias in emotion inference models used for sentiment analysis (SA). Machine learning models often reflect biases in their training data, impacting the validity of their outcomes. While previous research has highlighted gender and race biases, our study focuses on political bias-an underexplored, pervasive issue that can skew the interpretation of text data across many studies. We audit a Polish sentiment analysis model developed in our lab for bias. By analyzing valence predictions for names and sentences involving Polish politicians, we uncovered systematic differences influenced by political affiliations. Our findings suggest that annotations by human raters propagate political biases into the model's predictions. To prove it, we pruned the training dataset of texts mentioning these politicians and observed a reduction in bias, though not its complete elimination. Given the significant implications of political bias in SA, our study emphasizes caution in employing these models for social science research. We recommend a critical examination of SA results and propose using lexicon-based systems as an ideologically neutral alternative. This paper underscores the necessity for ongoing scrutiny and methodological adjustments to ensure the reliability of the use of machine learning in academic and applied contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.