pith. sign in

arxiv: 2411.13184 · v1 · submitted 2024-11-20 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

Quantitative Fairness -- A Framework For The Design Of Equitable Cybernetic Societies

Kevin Riehl , Michail Makridis , Anastasios Kouvelas This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 17:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY
keywords fairness frameworkcybernetic societiesalgorithmic decision-makingdistributive fairnessquantitative measuresequitable systemstransactional fairnesssocial equity
0
0 comments X

The pith

A quantitative transactional distributive fairness framework enables systematic design of equitable decision-making systems for cybernetic societies.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

As algorithms increasingly control decisions across industries, government, and daily life, the paper highlights the danger of embedded inequities and discrimination. Existing quantitative fairness measures are limited because they are too application-specific, carry undesirable properties, or embed ideological assumptions. The work introduces a new framework defined as transactional and distributive to provide a general, ideology-agnostic way to quantify and incorporate fairness into system design. This matters because it could support the creation of rules that foster cooperation, build public trust, enable social mobility, and reduce self-reinforcing cycles of disadvantage.

Core claim

The paper claims that a quantitative, transactional, distributive fairness framework overcomes the shortcomings of prior measures and supports the systematic design of socially feasible decision-making systems in cybernetic societies, where algorithms shape social interactions, infrastructure, and individual outcomes.

What carries the argument

The quantitative, transactional, distributive fairness framework, which defines fairness through measurable transactions and distributions to guide algorithm design.

If this is right

  • Decision systems can be engineered to promote cooperation between individuals rather than conflict.
  • Public resistance to algorithmic rules can be lowered through demonstrated fairness and transparency.
  • Self-reinforcing cycles of poverty can be interrupted by enabling greater social mobility.
  • Motivation, contribution, and satisfaction among participants can increase through inclusive design.
  • Social cohesion within groups governed by such systems can be strengthened.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The framework could be instantiated in simulation environments with multiple agents to test whether it produces stable cooperative equilibria.
  • Integration with control theory methods for infrastructure systems might require additional constraints on transaction timing.
  • Application to regulatory oversight of AI in public services could yield testable protocols for auditing equity.
  • The transactional component may connect naturally to mechanism design problems in economics for incentive alignment.

Load-bearing premise

Existing quantitative fairness measures are either too application-specific, suffer from undesirable characteristics, or are not ideology-agnostic, and a new framework can overcome these limitations.

What would settle it

Implementation of the framework in a concrete algorithmic decision system followed by measurement of whether resulting outcomes show reduced systematic discrimination and higher equity scores compared with systems using prior fairness measures.

read the original abstract

Advancements in computer science, artificial intelligence, and control systems of the recent have catalyzed the emergence of cybernetic societies, where algorithms play a significant role in decision-making processes affecting the daily life of humans in almost every aspect. Algorithmic decision-making expands into almost every industry, government processes critical infrastructure, and shapes the life-reality of people and the very fabric of social interactions and communication. Besides the great potentials to improve efficiency and reduce corruption, missspecified cybernetic systems harbor the threat to create societal inequities, systematic discrimination, and dystopic, totalitarian societies. Fairness is a crucial component in the design of cybernetic systems, to promote cooperation between selfish individuals, to achieve better outcomes at the system level, to confront public resistance, to gain trust and acceptance for rules and institutions, to perforate self-reinforcing cycles of poverty through social mobility, to incentivize motivation, contribution and satisfaction of people through inclusion, to increase social-cohesion in groups, and ultimately to improve life quality. Quantitative descriptions of fairness are crucial to reflect equity into algorithms, but only few works in the fairness literature offer such measures; the existing quantitative measures in the literature are either too application-specific, suffer from undesirable characteristics, or are not ideology-agnostic. Therefore, this work proposes a quantitative, transactional, distributive fairness framework, which enables systematic design of socially feasible decision-making systems. Moreover, it emphasizes the importance of fairness and transparency when designing algorithms for equitable, cybernetic societies.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a quantitative, transactional, distributive fairness framework for the design of equitable cybernetic societies. It argues that existing quantitative fairness measures in the literature are either too application-specific, suffer from undesirable characteristics, or are not ideology-agnostic, and positions the new framework as enabling systematic design of socially feasible decision-making systems while emphasizing fairness and transparency in algorithmic design.

Significance. A general, ideology-agnostic quantitative fairness framework with explicit transactional and distributive properties could meaningfully advance the design of decision-making algorithms in control systems and AI. The manuscript, however, supplies no formal definitions, axioms, computable measures, derivations, or comparative evaluations, so no such advance is demonstrated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the proposed framework overcomes application-specificity, undesirable characteristics, and ideology dependence of prior measures is asserted without any formal definition of the framework, axiom set, numerical score, or comparative evaluation against existing measures.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: no derivations, definitions of transactional or distributive fairness, properties, or validation steps are supplied, so it is impossible to verify whether the framework produces well-defined, computable fairness scores from observable transactions that are independent of any particular ethical stance.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: 'recent have' should read 'recent years have'.
  2. [Abstract] Typo: 'missspecified' should read 'misspecified'.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their review and for highlighting the need for greater formality in the presentation of the framework. We agree that the current manuscript does not supply the explicit definitions, axioms, derivations, or evaluations required to substantiate the abstract's claims, and we will revise accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the proposed framework overcomes application-specificity, undesirable characteristics, and ideology dependence of prior measures is asserted without any formal definition of the framework, axiom set, numerical score, or comparative evaluation against existing measures.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the abstract asserts these advantages without accompanying formal content in the manuscript. The current version introduces the framework at a conceptual level only. In revision we will add an explicit axiom set, a computable numerical fairness score, and a comparative section evaluating the new measures against representative prior approaches on the dimensions of application-specificity, undesirable properties, and ideology dependence. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: no derivations, definitions of transactional or distributive fairness, properties, or validation steps are supplied, so it is impossible to verify whether the framework produces well-defined, computable fairness scores from observable transactions that are independent of any particular ethical stance.

    Authors: The manuscript does not currently contain derivations, formal definitions of transactional or distributive fairness, stated properties, or validation steps. We will expand the paper to supply these elements, including a precise mapping from observable transactions to fairness scores and an argument for ideology-agnosticism based on the transactional and distributive axioms. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; proposal contains no derivations or load-bearing equations

full rationale

The manuscript is a high-level proposal for a new transactional/distributive fairness framework. No equations, parameter fits, uniqueness theorems, or self-citations appear in the supplied abstract or description. The central claim is an assertion that the new framework overcomes defects of prior measures, but this assertion is not supported by any mathematical construction, fitted input, or self-referential derivation that could reduce to its own inputs. Absent any derivation chain, no circularity patterns (self-definitional, fitted-input-called-prediction, etc.) are present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No concrete free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5808 in / 896 out tokens · 53429 ms · 2026-05-23T17:20:34.902531+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. FairSCOSCA: Fairness At Arterial Signals -- Just Around The Corner

    cs.CY 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    FairSCOSCA extends deployed arterial signal controllers with waiting-time optimization and early phase termination to improve egalitarian, Rawlsian, utilitarian, and Harsanyian fairness metrics in simulation while pre...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline " cite write " FUNCTION editor.postfix editor num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION editor.trans.postfix editor num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION trans.postfix translator num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION authors.editors.reflist.apa5 'field := 'dot := field num.names 'numnames := numnames 'format.num.names := format.num.names na...

    work page

  2. [2]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution journal key keywords month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year eprint archive archivePrefix primaryClass adsurl adsnote version label INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.sta...

    work page

  3. [3]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION if.digit duplicate "0" = swap duplicate "1" = swap duplicate "2" = swap duplicate "3" = swap duplicate "4" = swap duplicate "5" = swap duplicate "6" = swap duplicate "7" = swap duplicate "8" = swap "9" = or or or or or or or or or FUNCTION n.separate 't := "" #0 'numnames := t empty not t #-1 #1 subs...

    work page

  4. [4]

    McKiernan, and S

    Abbott, J., K. McKiernan, and S. McNulty. 2024. Technocracy for the people? the impact of government-imposed democratic innovations on governance and citizen well-being. Comparative Political Studies\/ 57\/ (2): 187--220. doi:10.1177/00104140231178725

    work page doi:10.1177/00104140231178725 2024

  5. [5]

    Acemoglu, D. and A. Wolitzky. 2021. A theory of equality before the law. The Economic Journal\/ 131\/ (636): 1429--1465. doi:10.1093/ej/ueaa116

    work page doi:10.1093/ej/ueaa116 2021

  6. [6]

    Andreae, and C

    Agyemang, M., D.A. Andreae, and C. McComb. 2023. Uncovering potential bias in engineering design: a comparative review of bias research in medicine. Design Science\/ 9: e17. doi:10.1017/dsj.2023.17

    work page doi:10.1017/dsj.2023.17 2023

  7. [7]

    Ashby, W.R. 1956. An introduction to cybernetics . London: Chapman & Hall Ltd. ISBN: 1-61427-765-6

    work page 1956

  8. [9]

    Barnard, C. and B. Hepple. 2000. Substantive equality. The Cambridge Law Journal\/ 59\/ (3): 562--585. doi:10.1017/S0008197300000246

    work page doi:10.1017/s0008197300000246 2000

  9. [10]

    Barry, B. 1997. Sustainability and intergenerational justice. Theoria\/ 44\/ (89): 43--64. doi:10.3167/004058197783593443

    work page doi:10.3167/004058197783593443 1997

  10. [11]

    Heidari, S

    Berk, R., H. Heidari, S. Jabbari, M. Kearns, and A. Roth. 2021. Fairness in criminal justice risk assessments: The state of the art. Sociological Methods & Research\/ 50\/ (1): 3--44. doi:10.1177/0049124118782533

    work page doi:10.1177/0049124118782533 2021

  11. [12]

    Massouli \'e , A

    Bonald, T., L. Massouli \'e , A. Proutiere, and J. Virtamo. 2006. A queueing analysis of max-min fairness, proportional fairness and balanced fairness. Queueing systems\/ 53: 65--84. doi:10.1007/s11134-006-7587-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s11134-006-7587-7 2006

  12. [13]

    Brams, S.J. and A.D. Taylor. 1996. Fair Division: From cake-cutting to dispute resolution . Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 978-0521556446

    work page 1996

  13. [14]

    Brosnan, S.F. and F.B. de Waal. 2014. Evolution of responses to (un) fairness. Science\/ 346\/ (6207): 1251776. doi:10.1126/science.1251776

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1251776 2014

  14. [15]

    Brown, P. 2017. Education, opportunity and the prospects for social mobility, Education and social mobility , 60--82. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315651972-11

    work page doi:10.4324/9781315651972-11 2017

  15. [16]

    Leiserson, R.L

    Cormen, T.H., C.E. Leiserson, R.L. Rivest, and C. Stein. 2022. Introduction to algorithms . MIT press. ISBN: 0-262-04630-X

    work page 2022

  16. [17]

    Light, and R.L

    Daniels, N., D. Light, and R.L. Caplan. 1996. Benchmarks of fairness for health care reform . Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN: 0-19-510237-1

    work page 1996

  17. [18]

    Brockner, A

    De Cremer, D., J. Brockner, A. Fishman, M. van Dijke, W. van Olffen, and D.M. Mayer. 2010. When do procedural fairness and outcome fairness interact to influence employees’ work attitudes and behaviors? the moderating effect of uncertainty. Journal of Applied Psychology\/ 95\/ (2): 291. doi:10.1037/a0017866

    work page doi:10.1037/a0017866 2010

  18. [19]

    Ding, Y., E. Park, M. Nagarajan, and E. Grafstein. 2019. Patient prioritization in emergency department triage systems: An empirical study of the canadian triage and acuity scale (ctas). Manufacturing & Service Operations Management\/ 21\/ (4): 723--741. doi:10.1287/msom.2018.0719

    work page doi:10.1287/msom.2018.0719 2019

  19. [20]

    Dorfman, R. 1979. A formula for the gini coefficient. The review of economics and statistics\/ : 146--149. doi:10.2307/1924845

    work page doi:10.2307/1924845 1979

  20. [21]

    Dworkin, R. 2000. Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality . Harvard University Press. ISBN: 0-674-00219-9

    work page 2000

  21. [22]

    Eubanks, V. 2012. Digital dead end: Fighting for social justice in the information age . MIT Press. ISBN: 978-0-262-01498-4

    work page 2012

  22. [23]

    Friedman, J. 2019. Power without knowledge: a critique of technocracy . Oxford University Press. ISBN: 0-19-087717-0

    work page 2019

  23. [24]

    Gilley, B. 2017. Technocracy and democracy as spheres of justice in public policy. Policy Sciences\/ 50: 9--22. doi:10.1007/s11077-016-9260-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s11077-016-9260-2 2017

  24. [25]

    Mieth, and C

    Goppel, A., C. Mieth, and C. Neuh \"a user. 2016. Handbuch gerechtigkeit. Springer\/ . doi:10.1007/978-3-476-05345-9

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-476-05345-9 2016

  25. [26]

    Gu, Z., Z. Liu, Q. Cheng, and M. Saberi. 2018. Congestion pricing practices and public acceptance: A review of evidence. Case Studies on Transport Policy\/ 6\/ (1): 94--101. doi:10.1016/j.cstp.2018.01.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cstp.2018.01.004 2018

  26. [27]

    Mangubhai, M

    Gurney, G.G., S. Mangubhai, M. Fox, M.K. Kim, and A. Agrawal. 2021. Equity in environmental governance: perceived fairness of distributional justice principles in marine co-management. Environmental Science & Policy\/ 124: 23--32. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2021.05.022

    work page doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2021.05.022 2021

  27. [28]

    Harsanyi, J.C. 1975. Can the maximin principle serve as a basis for morality? a critique of john rawls's theory. American political science review\/ 69\/ (2): 594--606. doi:10.2307/1959090

    work page doi:10.2307/1959090 1975

  28. [29]

    Harvey, D. 2010. Social justice and the city , Volume 1. University of Georgia press. ISBN: 978-0-8203-3604-6

    work page 2010

  29. [30]

    Herfindahl, O.C. 1950. Concentration in the steel industry . Ph.\ D. thesis, Columbia University

    work page 1950

  30. [31]

    Hirshleifer, J. 1978. The private and social value of information and the reward to inventive activity, Uncertainty in economics , 541--556. Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-214850-7.50038-3

    work page doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-214850-7.50038-3 1978

  31. [32]

    Mulvey, and M

    Hitti, A., K.L. Mulvey, and M. Killen. 2011. Social exclusion and culture: The role of group norms, group identity and fairness. Anales de psicolog \' a\/ 27\/ (3): 587--599. doi:10.6018/analesps

    work page doi:10.6018/analesps 2011

  32. [33]

    Hoover, E.M. 1936. The measurement of industrial localization. The Review of Economic Statistics\/ : 162--171. doi:10.2307/1927875

    work page doi:10.2307/1927875 1936

  33. [34]

    Muhammad, and N

    Hossain, M.S., G. Muhammad, and N. Guizani. 2020. Explainable ai and mass surveillance system-based healthcare framework to combat covid-i9 like pandemics. IEEE network\/ 34\/ (4): 126--132. doi:10.1109/MNET.011.2000458

    work page doi:10.1109/mnet.011.2000458 2020

  34. [35]

    Hume, D. 1740. A treatise of human nature: Being an attempt to introduce the experimental method of reasoning into moral subjects. Self published manuscript\/

    work page

  35. [36]

    Hurwitz, J. and M. Peffley. 2005. Explaining the great racial divide: Perceptions of fairness in the us criminal justice system. The journal of politics\/ 67\/ (3): 762--783. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00338.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00338.x 2005

  36. [37]

    Kubzansky, and R.J

    Jackson, B., L.D. Kubzansky, and R.J. Wright. 2006. Linking perceived unfairness to physical health: The perceived unfairness model. Review of General Psychology\/ 10\/ (1): 21--40. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.10.1.21

    work page doi:10.1037/1089-2680.10.1.21 2006

  37. [38]

    Chiu, W.R

    Jain, R.K., D.M.W. Chiu, W.R. Hawe, et al. 1984. A quantitative measure of fairness and discrimination. Eastern Research Laboratory, Digital Equipment Corporation, Hudson, MA\/ 21: 1. doi:10.48550/arXiv.cs/9809099

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.cs/9809099 1984

  38. [39]

    Jamison, D.T. 2018. Disease control priorities: improving health and reducing poverty. The Lancet\/ 391\/ (10125): e11--e14. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60097-6

    work page doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60097-6 2018

  39. [40]

    Knetsch, R

    Kahneman, D., J.L. Knetsch, R. Thaler, et al. 1986. Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. American economic review\/ 76\/ (4): 728--741. doi:10.1515/9781400829118-011

    work page doi:10.1515/9781400829118-011 1986

  40. [41]

    Krings, A. and T.M. Schusler. 2020. Equity in sustainable development: Community responses to environmental gentrification. International Journal of Social Welfare\/ 29\/ (4): 321--334. doi:10.1111/ijsw.12425

    work page doi:10.1111/ijsw.12425 2020

  41. [42]

    Larsson, O.L. 2022. Technocracy, governmentality, and post-structuralism, Technocracy and the Epistemology of Human Behavior , 103--123. Routledge. ISBN: 1-003-32838-5. doi:10.4324/9781003328384

    work page doi:10.4324/9781003328384 2022

  42. [43]

    Lee, M.S.A. and L. Floridi. 2021. Algorithmic fairness in mortgage lending: from absolute conditions to relational trade-offs. Minds and Machines\/ 31\/ (1): 165--191. doi:10.1007/s11023-020-09529-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s11023-020-09529-4 2021

  43. [44]

    Lind, E.A. and T.R. Tyler. 2013. The social psychology of procedural justice . Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN: 0-306-42726-5

    work page 2013

  44. [45]

    Loland, S. 2010. Fairness in sport. The ethics of sports. A reader\/ : 116--124. doi:10.4324/9780367766924-RESS179-1

    work page doi:10.4324/9780367766924-ress179-1 2010

  45. [46]

    Martens, K. 2016. Transport justice: Designing fair transportation systems . Routledge. ISBN: 0-415-63832-1

    work page 2016

  46. [47]

    Mill, J.S. 2016. Utilitarianism, Seven masterpieces of philosophy , 329--375. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315508818-7

    work page doi:10.4324/9781315508818-7 2016

  47. [48]

    Pellow, and J.T

    Mohai, P., D. Pellow, and J.T. Roberts. 2009. Environmental justice. Annual review of environment and resources\/ 34\/ (1): 405--430. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-082508-094348

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-082508-094348 2009

  48. [49]

    Nozick, R. 1974. Anarchy, state, and utopia . John Wiley & Sons. ISBN: 978-0-631-19780-5

    work page 1974

  49. [50]

    Nussbaum, M.C. 2011. Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Harvard University Press\/ . doi:harvard.9780674061200.c8

    work page 2011

  50. [51]

    Palma, J.G. 2011. Homogeneous middles vs. heterogeneous tails, and the end of the ‘inverted-u’: It's all about the share of the rich. development and Change\/ 42\/ (1): 87--153. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.2011.01694.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.2011.01694.x 2011

  51. [52]

    Schwanen, and D

    Pereira, R.H., T. Schwanen, and D. Banister. 2017. Distributive justice and equity in transportation. Transport reviews\/ 37\/ (2): 170--191. doi:10.1080/01441647.2016.1257660

    work page doi:10.1080/01441647.2016.1257660 2017

  52. [53]

    Pessach, D. and E. Shmueli. 2023. Algorithmic fairness, Machine Learning for Data Science Handbook: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Handbook , 867--886. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-24628-9_37

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-24628-9_37 2023

  53. [54]

    Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Harvard University Press\/ . doi:10.2307/j.ctvjf9z6v

    work page doi:10.2307/j.ctvjf9z6v 1971

  54. [55]

    Scheffler, S. 2017. What is egalitarianism?, John Rawls , 309--344. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315251431-12

    work page doi:10.4324/9781315251431-12 2017

  55. [56]

    Schino, G. and F. Aureli. 2009. Reciprocal altruism in primates: partner choice, cognition, and emotions. Advances in the Study of Behavior\/ 39: 45--69. doi:10.1016/S0065-3454(09)39002-6

    work page doi:10.1016/s0065-3454(09)39002-6 2009

  56. [57]

    Sen, A. 2008. The idea of justice. Journal of human development\/ 9\/ (3): 331--342. doi:10.1080/14649880802236540

    work page doi:10.1080/14649880802236540 2008

  57. [58]

    Shields, L. 2012. The prospects for sufficientarianism. Utilitas\/ 24\/ (1): 101--117. doi:10.1017/S0953820811000392

    work page doi:10.1017/s0953820811000392 2012

  58. [59]

    Simons, T. and Q. Roberson. 2003. Why managers should care about fairness: The effects of aggregate justice perceptions on organizational outcomes. Journal of applied psychology\/ 88\/ (3): 432. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.432

    work page doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.432 2003

  59. [60]

    Smith, A. 1776. The wealth of nations . Self published manuscript

    work page

  60. [61]

    Sunshine, J. and T.R. Tyler. 2003. The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & society review\/ 37\/ (3): 513--547. doi:10.1111/1540-5893.3703002

    work page doi:10.1111/1540-5893.3703002 2003

  61. [62]

    Tharp, R. 2018. Teaching transformed: Achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony. Routledge\/ . doi:10.4324/9780429496943

    work page doi:10.4324/9780429496943 2018

  62. [63]

    Theil, H. 1965. The information approach to demand analysis. Econometrica\/ 33\/ (1): 67--87. doi:10.2307/1911889

    work page doi:10.2307/1911889 1965

  63. [64]

    Sergeeva, and M

    van den Broek, E., A. Sergeeva, and M. Huysman 2020. Hiring algorithms: An ethnography of fairness in practice. In 40th international conference on information systems, ICIS 2019 , pp.\ 1--9. Association for Information Systems. ISBN: 0-9966831-9-4

    work page 2020

  64. [65]

    Von Hoffman, A. 2000. A study in contradictions: The origins and legacy of the housing act of 1949. Housing policy debate\/ 11\/ (2): 299--326. doi:10.1080/10511482.2000.9521370

    work page doi:10.1080/10511482.2000.9521370 2000

  65. [66]

    Walzer, M. 1983. Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality . New York: Basic Books. ISBN: 0-465-08189-4

    work page 1983

  66. [67]

    Nikomachische Ethik

    Wolf, U. 2002. Aristoteles'" Nikomachische Ethik" . Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft Darmstadt. ISBN: 978-3-499-55651-7

    work page 2002

  67. [68]

    Uszkoreit, Y

    Xu, F., H. Uszkoreit, Y. Du, W. Fan, D. Zhao, and J. Zhu. 2019. Explainable ai: A brief survey on history, research areas, approaches and challenges. Natural language processing and Chinese computing: 8th cCF international conference, NLPCC 2019, dunhuang, China, October 9--14, 2019, proceedings, part II 8\/ : 563--574. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-32236-6_51

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-32236-6_51 2019

  68. [69]

    David, S.H

    Xu, M., J.M. David, S.H. Kim, et al. 2018. The fourth industrial revolution: Opportunities and challenges. International journal of financial research\/ 9\/ (2): 90--95. doi:10.5430/ijfr.v9n2p

    work page doi:10.5430/ijfr.v9n2p 2018

  69. [70]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archive author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution journal key keywords month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year archivePrefix primaryClass adsurl adsnote version label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sent...

    work page

  70. [71]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION add.period duplicate empty 'skip "." * add.blank if FUNCTION if.digit duplicate "0" = swap duplicate "1" = swap duplicate "2" = swap duplicate "3" = swap duplicate "4" = swap duplicate "5" = swap duplicate "6" = swap duplicate "7" = swap duplicate "8" = swap "9" = or or or or or or or or or FUNCTION ...

    work page

  71. [72]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION output.doi doi empty skip "doi:" doi * "" * output if FUNCTION format.archive archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if FUNCTION format.primaryClass primaryClass empty "" " [" primaryClass * "] " * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archive empty " https://arxiv.org/abs/" eprint * " " * " ...

    work page

  72. [73]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION string.to.integer 't := t text.length 'k := #1 'char.num := t char.num #1 substring 's := s is.num s "." = or char.num k = not and char.num #1 + 'char.num := while char.num #1 - 'char.num := t #1 char.num substring FUNCTION find.integer 't := #0 'int := int not t empty not and t #1 #1 substring 's :=...

    work page

  73. [74]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION string.to.integer 't := t text.length 'k := #1 'char.num := t char.num #1 substring 's := s is.num s "." = or char.num k = not and char.num #1 + 'char.num := while char.num #1 - 'char.num := t #1 char.num substring FUNCTION find.integer 't := #0 'int := int not t empty not and t #1 #1 substring 's :=...

    work page

  74. [75]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archive author booktitle chapter edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key keywords month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url doi volume year archivePrefix primaryClass eid adsurl adsnote version label INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.sta...

    work page

  75. [76]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

    work page

  76. [77]

    Available from:

    ENTRY address assignee author booktitle chapter cartographer day edition editor howpublished institution inventor journal key keywords month note number organization pages part publisher school series title type volume word year eprint doi url lastchecked updated archive archivePrefix primaryClass eid adsurl adsnote version label INTEGERS output.state bef...

    work page

  77. [78]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize ":" * " " *...

    work page