A Preliminary Framework for Intersectionality in ML Pipelines

Alicia E. Boyd; Angela D.R. Smith; Brittany Johnson; Michelle Nashla Turcios

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 89 references

A Preliminary Framework for Intersectionality in ML Pipelines

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read An audit of three machine-learning efforts finds each misapplies intersectionality's core tenets.

desk verdict A useful, honest, preliminary framework for intersectionality in ML, but the case-study evaluation rests on an unvalidated checklist that needs transparent operationalization. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08792 v1 pith:2UU7NYTT submitted 2025-05-06 cs.LG cs.CY

Michelle Nashla Turcios , Alicia E. Boyd , Angela D.R. Smith , Brittany Johnson This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGcs.CY

keywords intersectionalitymachinelearningalgorithmicfairnesssocialjusticecriticaltheorypositionalitycasestudyframework

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that machine-learning efforts that invoke intersectionality routinely fall short of the theory's founding commitments, and that the gap is structural rather than incidental: researchers cite Crenshaw, the Combahee River Collective, and Collins accurately, then operationalize intersectionality in ways that drop its core concerns of power, relationality, and social justice. To make that case, the authors distill foundational scholarship into five preliminary guidelines and use them to audit three published ML projects that explicitly ground themselves in intersectionality. The audit finds misalignments in all three: identities are often treated as separable or aggregatable, societal implications are disclaimed, and reflexive attention to researcher positionality is missing. If the guidelines are a faithful translation of the theory, the paper gives researchers a structured instrument for checking whether an ML pipeline actually honors intersectionality rather than merely naming it.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the five-guideline audit rubric built from foundational intersectionality scholarship, specifically the 'three C's': the Combahee River Collective's interlocking oppressions, Kimberlé Crenshaw's account of how law fails Black women at the race–gender intersection, and Patricia Hill Collins' critical social theory of intersectionality. Each guideline is unpacked into concrete subcriteria—for example, whether the project treats identities as mutually constructive, whether data-imbalance fixes compromise identities, whether the work acknowledges social justice and societal implications, whether statistical methods oversimplify lived experience, and whether researchers disclose positionality. The rubric does the argument's work by converting theory into a checkable standard, so the case-study verdicts in the paper's alignment table are the evidence for its claim.

What would settle it

A direct test: assemble a panel of intersectionality scholars, give them the three founding texts but not the five guidelines, and have them independently judge whether the same three ML projects honor intersectionality. If the panel's verdicts diverge substantially from the paper's ratings, the guidelines are not a faithful instrument; if they agree, the misalignment finding holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is an operational diagnosis: when machine learning researchers adopt intersectionality, they adopt its vocabulary and its citations but not its analytic core. The paper's five-guideline framework—relational analysis, social formations of complex inequalities, historical and cultural specificity, feature engineering and statistical methods, and ethical considerations and transparency—is used to score three case studies. In all three, at least some guidelines receive partial or full alignment, yet overall the projects are rated misaligned on key tenets: one project learns about Black women by training on Black men and white women, collapsing mutually constitutive identities; another invokes intersectionality mainly in its introduction and does not connect its design workshops to power; the third maps word embeddings onto nineteenth-century identities without reckoning with its own interpretive position. The authors conclude that current practice defines intersectionality correctly but applies it inconsistently, and they position the five guidelines as a preliminary corrective.

Load-bearing premise

The entire analysis depends on the idea that the five guidelines really do capture what Crenshaw, the Combahee River Collective, and Collins meant by intersectionality; if that translation from theory to checklist is disputed, the verdicts on the case studies no longer follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

An ML project that cites intersectionality now carries a burden of proof: it must show relational feature engineering, not subgroup aggregation or cross-group training that collapses identities.
Researchers who disclaim societal implications in their fairness work are, by this standard, misusing intersectionality even when they define it correctly.
The rubric gives reviewers and practitioners a concrete checklist for auditing pipeline decisions, from data labeling through evaluation metric choice.
Because all three audited projects failed or partially failed on ethical transparency and positionality, the paper implies that equitable ML work should include reflexive statements and interdisciplinary input.
The guidelines are preliminary, and the authors call for refinement through deeper analysis and a larger sample of case studies.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

One extension the paper leaves implicit: the rubric could be turned into a reviewer checklist for fairness venues, making 'misaligned with intersectionality' a citable reason to request revisions.
The findings suggest a deeper tension than the paper states—if relationality is non-negotiable, some purely quantitative pipeline designs may be incapable of satisfying it, and would need participatory or qualitative components.
A testable extension: have independent intersectionality scholars apply the original founding texts directly to the same three papers; high agreement with the paper's ratings would validate the rubric, and low agreement would localize where the theory-to-checklist translation loses fidelity.
The framework could be extended from three descriptive cases into a design tool, specifying for each pipeline stage which concrete practices satisfy each guideline.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things: this is a genuine attempt to build a practical bridge from intersectionality scholarship to ML pipeline design, and it is explicitly preliminary—the authors say so in the limitations. The main contribution is a set of five guidelines (relational analysis, social formations, historical/cultural specificity, feature engineering/statistical methods, ethical transparency) with subcriteria, derived from Crenshaw, Combahee, Collins, and others. Applying these to three ML papers that cite Crenshaw, they find persistent misalignments: the papers use intersectionality in motivation but not in methodology. That finding is plausible and, I think, correct in broad strokes.

What it does well: it takes foundational theory seriously and tries to make it operational for technical audiences. The case-study discussions are careful and specific—for example, they show how CS1's reallocation of racial identities to "closest neighbor" compromises the mutually constitutive principle. The paper is also honest about its limitations and doesn't overclaim novelty; it positions the guidelines as a starting point.

Soft spots: The stress-test note lands. The five guidelines are asserted to be "derived from" foundational scholarship, but there's no derivation protocol or mapping from each subcriterion to specific passages. Predicates like "acknowledges the social justice facet" and "contemplates cultural harm" are interpretive, and the same authors both designed the instrument and applied it, with no inter-rater reliability or blinding. The case-study selection is a convenience sample of 3 from 23, and representativeness is asserted, not shown. However, these are exactly the limitations the authors flag in §5.4; they explicitly say the guidelines will be refined. So the paper is better read as a well-argued position piece than a validated audit.

The circularity concern is real but mild: any critique of fidelity to a theory measures against the critic's reading of the theory. That's normal in critical theory work; it doesn't invalidate the exercise, but it does mean the ratings are interpretive, not objective.

Bottom line: This is a useful paper for fairness/HCI researchers who want to use intersectionality without treating it as a demographic checkbox. It deserves peer review, but a referee should push for a more transparent derivation of the guidelines, a larger and more systematic sample, and possibly an inter-rater reliability check or at least a clear statement that the ratings are the authors' interpretive judgment. I'd send it out.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a preliminary framework for applying intersectionality in machine learning pipelines, organized as five guidelines with eighteen subcriteria. The guidelines are presented as derived from the foundational scholarship of the Combahee River Collective, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Patricia Hill Collins. The authors review 23 papers, select three case studies (Wang et al. 2022; Klumbytė et al. 2022; Nelson 2021), and rate each case study's alignment with the guidelines in Table 1. They conclude that all three case studies partially align with the foundations of intersectionality but exhibit gaps and misalignments in relationality, power, social justice, and ethical transparency. The paper closes with recommendations for future ML efforts, emphasizing agenda alignment, positionality, and interdisciplinary collaboration.

Significance. If the proposed framework were validated, it would make a useful contribution by pushing ML researchers to treat power, historical specificity, and social justice as first-order design considerations rather than as decorative citations. The authors deserve credit for grounding the discussion in foundational scholarship, for providing concrete subcriteria, for including a positionality statement in Section 5.2, and for being explicit in Section 5.4 that the guidelines are preliminary. However, as presented, the evaluative results do not yet support the paper's normative conclusions. The measurement instrument is not operationalized, the Table 1 ratings are not shown to be reproducible, and the case-study selection is not demonstrated to be representative. The paper's central claim therefore rests on an unvalidated instrument applied by its own designers.

major comments (4)

[Section 3.2 and Table 1] The evaluation instrument is not sufficiently operationalized. Subcriteria such as "acknowledges the social justice facet of intersectionality" (Guideline 3.1), "contemplates cultural harm caused by reinforcing existing power structures" (Guideline 3.4), and "refrains from diluting social identities for computational convenience" (Guideline 4.1) require substantial interpretive judgment, yet no decision rules are provided. The paper does not report a coding protocol, inter-rater reliability, or blinding. Because the central conclusion that CS1-CS3 misalign with intersectionality is entirely mediated by Table 1, these ratings cannot bear the paper's claims without at least a demonstration that the ratings are reproducible.
[Section 3.2] The guidelines lack a derivation protocol and external validation. The paper states that the guidelines were "derived from foundational intersectionality scholarship," but it does not map each guideline or subcriterion to specific passages in Crenshaw, Combahee, or Collins, nor does it justify why these particular subcriteria constitute a faithful operationalization of the three C's. This creates a concrete risk of circularity: the same interpretive framework used to define "correct" intersectionality is then used as the benchmark for judging the case studies. The authors should provide a traceable mapping from each subcriterion to canonical scholarship and, ideally, an independent audit or member checking with intersectionality scholars.
[Section 3.1 and RQ1/RQ2] The case-study selection does not support the paper's generalizing language. The authors reviewed 23 papers but selected "three case studies in particular that represented the existing efforts" without stating the criteria for representativeness, and they then restricted the pool to papers that explicitly cite Crenshaw. This selection strategy biases both RQ1 (how intersectionality is being applied) and RQ2 (alignment with the theoretical foundations). The abstract and conclusion frame the findings as evidence about "existing efforts" applying intersectionality in ML, but a non-random sample of three cannot support that generalization. Either justify the sample's theoretical sufficiency or soften the claims to describe three illustrative cases.
[Table 1 and Section 4.1] There is no stated rule for aggregating subcriterion ratings into the guideline-level ratings, and the table contains inconsistent use of "not applicable." For CS2, subcriteria 4.1, 4.2, and 4.4 are marked as not applicable, yet overall Guideline 4 is rated "partially aligned"; for CS1, subcriteria 4.1 and 4.2 are rated "×" while 4.3 and 4.4 are rated as partially aligned, yet the overall rating for Guideline 4 is "×." A reproducible scoring rule (e.g., majority, minimum, or a weighted judgment rubric) is needed before Table 1 can be interpreted. Additionally, the narrative for CS1 Guideline 3.3 contains evidence that sounds like partial alignment (e.g., acknowledgment of underlying inequalities) but is coded as "no alignment"; this apparent contradiction should be resolved.

minor comments (5)

[Section 3.2 and Section 5.1] There are typographical errors: "Comhabee River Collectice" in Section 3.2 should be "Combahee River Collective," and "Cohambee" in Section 5.1 should be "Combahee."
[Table 1] The table legend symbols ("medbullet," "LEFTCIRCLE," "Circle") appear to be LaTeX macros that did not render correctly in the submitted version; please ensure the symbols display as intended in the final PDF.
[Section 4.1, CS1 Guideline 3.3] The prose for CS1 Guideline 3.3 includes observations that seem to support partial alignment, yet the table records "no alignment." Please revise the text so that the reasoning is internally consistent with the assigned rating.
[Section 2.3] The claim that "machine learning pipelines have generally failed to explicitly consider intersecting identities" is broad and is stated without a citation or systematic evidence; please either support or qualify this claim early in the paper.
[Section 5.4] The limitation paragraph is clear, but it appears after the findings. Consider placing an abbreviated version of this limitation before Table 1 so that readers interpret the ratings with appropriate caution from the outset.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the framework is a stipulated interpretive instrument, and the findings do not reduce to the guidelines by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an interpretive evaluation, not a formal derivation. The authors state that they 'devised a set of guidelines, drawing inspiration from the scholarly contributions of Combahee River Collective, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Patricia Hill Collins, bell hooks, and Lisa Bowleg' and then applied those guidelines to three case studies. The Table 1 codings are qualitative judgments rendered by the authors, not outputs of an equation or fitted parameters. The guidelines are admittedly preliminary—'we avoid claiming that our guidelines are comprehensive or complete' (§5.4)—so the framework's validity is contestable, but an unvalidated or internally constructed evaluative standard is a limitation, not circularity. No self-citation is load-bearing: the authors' own prior works (refs. [20], [21], [22], [68]) appear as supporting citations, but the evaluative standard is attributed to Crenshaw, Combahee, and Collins, and those foundational sources are external to the present paper. The finding that all three case studies show gaps and misalignments is not forced by the definitions; it is a contingent interpretive result. The paper therefore does not reduce its conclusion to its inputs by construction, and any circularity score beyond a token acknowledgment of the self-referential nature of theory-based evaluation would be disproportionate.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on the interpretive premise that the three C's canon correctly defines intersectionality and that the authors' five guidelines operationalize it faithfully. It also depends on the representativeness of three hand-selected case studies and on the validity of subjective qualitative ratings. No quantitative free parameters are fitted, but the sample size is a hand-chosen parameter that bounds the scope of the conclusions.

free parameters (1)

Number of case studies = 3
The analysis and findings are based on exactly three case studies chosen from 23 reviewed papers; the central claim's breadth depends on this hand-picked sample.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Intersectionality is best defined by the three C's (Combahee, Crenshaw, Collins), which prioritize power and social justice.
Section 2.2 states 'our work emphasizes the three C's definition of intersectionality as a methodology', making this the evaluative standard for the analysis.
ad hoc to paper The five guidelines (Section 3.2) faithfully operationalize the core tenets of intersectionality.
The guidelines are the authors' construction derived from scholarship, but the specific wording and sub-criteria are not independently validated.
domain assumption The three selected case studies are representative of existing intersectionality-in-ML efforts.
Section 3.1 asserts the three papers 'represented the existing efforts' but does not provide systematic selection criteria.
domain assumption The qualitative alignment ratings (aligned/partial/not aligned) are valid and reproducible.
The ratings are based on the authors' reading; no inter-rater reliability or coding scheme is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Preliminary Framework for Intersectionality in ML Pipelines." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2UU7NYTT

@misc{pith2026250508792,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Preliminary Framework for Intersectionality in ML Pipelines},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2UU7NYTT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08792}
}

read the original abstract

Machine learning (ML) has become a go-to solution for improving how we use, experience, and interact with technology (and the world around us). Unfortunately, studies have repeatedly shown that machine learning technologies may not provide adequate support for societal identities and experiences. Intersectionality is a sociological framework that provides a mechanism for explicitly considering complex social identities, focusing on social justice and power. While the framework of intersectionality can support the development of technologies that acknowledge and support all members of society, it has been adopted and adapted in ways that are not always true to its foundations, thereby weakening its potential for impact. To support the appropriate adoption and use of intersectionality for more equitable technological outcomes, we amplify the foundational intersectionality scholarship--Crenshaw, Combahee, and Collins (three C's), to create a socially relevant preliminary framework in developing machine-learning solutions. We use this framework to evaluate and report on the (mis)alignments of intersectionality application in machine learning literature.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

[1]

Linda Alco ﬀ. 1991. The problem of speaking for others. Cultural critique 20 (1991), 5–32

1991
[2]

Nikol G Alexander-Floyd. 2012. Disappearing acts: Recl aiming intersectionality in the social sciences in a post—Black feminist era. Feminist Formations(2012), 1–25

2012
[3]

Julia Angwin, Je ﬀLarson, Surya Mattu, and Lauren Kirchner. 2022. Machine bias. In Ethics of data and analytics . Auerbach Publications, 254–264

2022
[4]

Gloria Anzaldúa et al. 2004. Borderlands/La Frontera. na

2004
[5]

Greta Bauer, Lisa Bowleg, and Setareh Rouhani. 2014. Har nessing the power of intersectionality. Guidelines for Quantitative Intersectional Health Inequi ties Research 10 (2014), 0361684316654282

2014
[6]

Greta R Bauer. 2014. Incorporating intersectionality t heory into population health research methodology: challenges and the potential to adva nce health equity. So- cial science & medicine 110 (2014), 10–17

2014
[7]

Greta R Bauer, Siobhan M Churchill, Mayuri Mahendran, Ch antel Walwyn, Daniel Lizotte, and Alma Angelica Villa-Rueda. 2021. Inter sectionality in quan- titative research: A systematic review of its emergence and applications of theory and methods. SSM-population health 14 (2021), 100798

2021
[8]

Greta R Bauer and Daniel J Lizotte. 2021. Artiﬁcial intel ligence, intersectionality, and the future of public health. , 98–100 pages

2021

Show all 89 references

[9]

Greta R Bauer, Mayuri Mahendran, Chantel Walwyn, and Mos tafa Shokoohi
[10]

Greta R Bauer and Ayden I Scheim. 2019. Methods for analy tic intercategorical intersectionality in quantitative research: Discriminat ion as a mediator of health inequalities. Social Science & Medicine 226 (2019), 236–245

2019
[11]

Sirma Bilge. 2013. Intersectionality undone: Saving i ntersectionality from femi- nist intersectionality studies. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race 10, 2 (2013), 405–424

2013
[12]

Abeba Birhane. 2021. Algorithmic injustice: a relatio nal ethics approach. Pat- terns 2, 2 (2021), 100205

2021
[13]

Abeba Birhane and Olivia Guest. 2020. Towards decoloni sing computational sciences. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.14258 (2020)

2020 arXiv
[14]

Alan F Blackwell, Lee Wilson, Charles Boulton, and John Knell. 2009. Radical innovation: crossing knowledge boundaries with interdisciplinary teams. Techni- cal Report. University of Cambridge, Computer Laboratory

2009
[15]

Brian Bourke. 2014. Positionality: Reﬂecting on the re search process. The qual- itative report 19, 33 (2014), 1–9

2014
[16]

Lisa Bowleg. 2008. When Black + lesbian+ woman/nequalBlack lesbian woman: The methodological challenges of qualitative and quantita tive intersectionality research. Sex roles 59, 5-6 (2008), 312–325

2008
[17]

Once you’ve blended the cake, you ca n’t take the parts back to the main ingredients

Lisa Bowleg. 2013. “Once you’ve blended the cake, you ca n’t take the parts back to the main ingredients”: Black gay and bisexual men’s d escriptions and experiences of intersectionality. Sex roles 68, 11-12 (2013), 754–767

2013
[18]

The master’s tools will never disma ntle the master’s house

Lisa Bowleg. 2021. “The master’s tools will never disma ntle the master’s house”: Ten critical lessons for Black and other health equity resea rchers of color. Health Education & Behavior 48, 3 (2021), 237–249

2021
[19]

Lisa Bowleg and Greta Bauer. 2016. Quantifying interse ctionality. Psychology of Women Quarterly 40, 3 (2016), 337–341

2016
[20]

AE Boyd. 2021. Intersectionality and reﬂexivity—deco lonizing methodologies for the data science process. Patterns 2, 12 (2021), 100386

2021
[21]

Alicia E. Boyd. 2021. Quantitative intersectional data (QUINTA): a #metoo case study. Ph. D. Dissertation. DePaul University, College of Comput ing and Digital Media Dissertations

2021
[22]

Alicia E Boyd. 2023. Reﬂexive Practices in Software Eng ineering. In 2023 IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Equitable Data & Technology (FairWare). IEEE, 8–13

2023
[23]

Devon W Carbado. 2013. Colorblind intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 38, 4 (2013), 811–845

2013
[24]

Alan Chan, Rebecca Salganik, Alva Markelius, Chris Pan g, Nitarshan Rajkumar, Dmitrii Krasheninnikov, Lauro Langosco, Zhonghao He, Y awe n Duan, Micah Carroll, et al. 2023. Harms from Increasingly Agentic Algor ithmic Systems. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairn...

2023
[25]

Sumi Cho, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, and Leslie McCal l. 2013. To- ward a Field of Intersectionality Studies: Theory, Applica tions, and Praxis. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 38, 4 (2013), 785–810. https://doi.org/10.1086/669608

2013 doi
[26]

Combahee River Collective. 1983. The Combahee river co llective statement. Home girls: A Black feminist anthology (1983), 264–74

1983
[27]

Patricia Hill Collins. 1991. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment . routledge

1991
[28]

Patricia Hill Collins. 2015. Intersectionality’s Deﬁ nitional Dilemmas. Annual Review of Sociology 41, 1 (2015), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112142

2015 doi
[29]

Patricia Hill Collins. 2019. The di ﬀerence that power makes: Intersectionality and participatory democracy. The Palgrave handbook of intersectionality in public policy (2019), 167–192

2019
[30]

Patricia Hill Collins. 2019. Intersectionality as critical social theory . Duke Uni- versity Press

2019
[31]

Patricia Hill Collins and Sirma Bilge. 2016. Intersectionality. John Wiley & Sons

2016
[32]

Kimberlé Crenshaw. 1989. Demarginalizing the interse ction of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, f eminist theory, and an- tiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989, 1 (1989), 139–167

1989
[33]

Kimberle Crenshaw. 1990. Mapping the margins: Interse ctionality, identity poli- tics, and violence against women of color. Stan. L. Rev. 43 (1990), 1241. Conference’17, July 2017, Washington, DC, USA Michelle Nas hla T urcios, Alicia E. Boyd, Angela D. R. Smith, and Brittany Johnson

1990
[34]

Kimberlé Crenshaw, Nira Y uval-Davis, and Michelle Fin e. 2010. A conversation with founding scholars of intersectionality. The Intersectional Approach (2010), 61

2010
[35]

Kathy Davis. 2008. Intersectionality as buzzword: A so ciology of science per- spective on what makes a feminist theory successful. Feminist theory 9, 1 (2008), 67–85

2008
[36]

Ana Maria del Rio-Gonzalez, Sidney L Holt, and Lisa Bowl eg. 2021. Power- ing and structuring intersectionality: Beyond main and int eractive associations. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology 49, 1 (2021), 33–37

2021
[37]

William Dieterich, Christina Mendoza, and Tim Brennan . 2016. COMPAS risk scales: Demonstrating accuracy equity and predictive pari ty. Northpointe Inc 7, 4 (2016), 1–36

2016
[38]

Daniel James Fuchs. 2018. The dangers of human-like bia s in machine-learning algorithms. Missouri S&T’s Peer to Peer 2, 1 (2018), 1

2018
[39]

Alice Guan, Marilyn Thomas, Eric Vittingho ﬀ, Lisa Bowleg, Christina Man- gurian, and Paul Wesson. 2021. An investigation of quantita tive methods for as- sessing intersectionality in health research: A systematic review. SSM-population health 16 (2021), 100977

2021
[40]

Abid Haleem, Mohd Javaid, and Ravi Pratap Singh. 2022. A n era of ChatGPT as a signiﬁcant futuristic support tool: A study on features , abilities, and chal- lenges. BenchCouncil transactions on benchmarks, standards and ev aluations 2, 4 (2022), 100089

2022
[41]

Cynthia Hampton, David Reeping, and Desen Sevi Ozkan. 2 021. Positionality statements in engineering education research: A look at the hand that guides the methodological tools. Studies in Engineering Education 1, 2 (2021)

2021
[42]

Ange-Marie Hancock. 2007. Intersectionality as a norm ative and empirical para- digm. Politics & Gender 3, 2 (2007), 248–254

2007
[43]

Ange-Marie Hancock. 2007. When multiplication doesn’ t equal quick addition: Examining intersectionality as a research paradigm. Perspectives on politics 5, 1 (2007), 63–79

2007
[44]

Ange-Marie Hancock. 2013. Empirical Intersectionali ty: A Tale of Two Ap- proaches. UC Irvine Law Review 3, 2 (2013), 259

2013
[45]

Ellie Hernández and Gloria Anzaldúa. 1995. Re-thinkin g margins and borders: An interview with Gloria Anzaldúa. Discourse 18, 1/2 (1995), 7–15

1995
[46]

David J Hess and Benjamin K Sovacool. 2020. Sociotechni cal matters: Review- ing and integrating science and technology studies with ene rgy social science. Energy Research & Social Science 65 (2020), 101462

2020
[47]

Mireille Hildebrandt. 2021. The issue of bias. The fram ing powers of machine learning. (2021)

2021
[48]

Kashmir Hill. 2022. Wrongfully accused by an algorithm . In Ethics of Data and Analytics. Auerbach Publications, 138–142

2022
[49]

bell hooks. 1981. Black women and feminism . Routledge

1981
[50]

intersectional re- ﬂexivity:

Richard G Jones. 2010. Putting privilege into practice through" intersectional re- ﬂexivity:" Ruminations, interventions, and possibilitie s. Reﬂections: Narratives of Professional Helping (2010), 122

2010
[51]

Goda Klumbyt ˙e, Claude Draude, and Alex S Taylor. 2022. Critical tools for ma- chine learning: Working with intersectional critical conc epts in machine learning systems design. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Ac- countability, and Transparency. 1528–1541

2022
[52]

Ceren Korkmaz and Ana-Paula Correia. 2019. A review of r esearch on ma- chine learning in educational technology. Educational Media International 56, 3 (2019), 250–267

2019
[53]

Rita Kukafka, Stephen B Johnson, Allison Linfante, and John P Allegrante. 2003. Grounding a new information technology implementation fra mework in behav- ioral science: a systematic analysis of the literature on IT use. Journal of biomed- ical informatics 36, 3 (2003), 218–227

2003
[54]

Heidi Ledford. 2019. Millions of black people a ﬀected by racial bias in health- care algorithms. Nature 574, 7780 (2019), 608–610

2019
[55]

Dominique Lepore, Koustabh Dolui, Oleksandr Tomashch uk, Heereen Shim, Chetanya Puri, Y uan Li, Nuoya Chen, and Francesca Spigarelli. 2023. Interdisci- plinary research unlocking innovative solutions in health care. Technovation 120 (2023), 102511

2023
[56]

María Lugones. 2010. Toward a decolonial feminism. Hypatia 25, 4 (2010), 742–759

2010
[57]

Mayuri Mahendran, Daniel Lizotte, and Greta R Bauer. 20 22. Describing inter- sectional health outcomes: an evaluation of data analysis m ethods. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) 33, 3 (2022), 395

2022
[58]

Mayuri Mahendran, Daniel Lizotte, and Greta R Bauer. 20 22. Quantitative meth- ods for descriptive intersectional analysis with binary he alth outcomes. SSM- population health 17 (2022), 101032

2022
[59]

Bernard Marr. 2019. Artiﬁcial intelligence in practice: how 50 successful comp a- nies used AI and machine learning to solve problems . John Wiley & Sons

2019
[60]

Julie P Martin, Renee Desing, and Maura Borrego. 2022. P ositionality statements are just the tip of the iceberg: Moving towards a reﬂexive pro cess. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 28, 4 (2022)

2022
[61]

Vivian M May. 2015. Pursuing intersectionality, unsettling dominant imagina r- ies. Routledge

2015
[62]

Leslie McCall. 2005. The complexity of intersectional ity. Signs: Journal of women in culture and society 30, 3 (2005), 1771–1800

2005
[63]

Emily Mena, Gabriele Bolte, and Advance Gender study gr oup Christine Holm- berg Philipp Jaehn Sibille Merz Alexander Rommel Anke-Chri stine Saß Kath- leen Pöge Sarah Strasser Gabriele Bolte Emily Mena. 2021. Cl assiﬁcation tree analysis for an intersectionality-informed ident...

2021
[64]

Bonnie Moradi and Patrick R Grzanka. 2017. Using inters ectionality responsi- bly: Toward critical epistemology, structural analysis, a nd social justice activism. Journal of counseling psychology 64, 5 (2017), 500

2017
[65]

Bonnie Moradi, Mike C Parent, Alexandra S Weis, Staci Ou ch, and Kendal L Broad. 2020. Mapping the travels of intersectionality scho larship: A citation network analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly 44, 2 (2020), 151–169

2020
[66]

Laura K Nelson. 2021. Leveraging the alignment between machine learning and intersectionality: Using word embeddings to measure inter sectional experiences of the nineteenth century US South. Poetics 88 (2021), 101539

2021
[67]

Ziad Obermeyer, Brian Powers, Christine V ogeli, and Se ndhil Mullainathan
[68]

Ihudiya Finda Ogbonnaya-Ogburu, Angela DR Smith, Alex andra To, and Ken- taro Toyama. 2020. Critical race theory for HCI. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–16

2020
[69]

Mariana Ortega. 2006. Being lovingly, knowingly ignor ant: White feminism and women of color. Hypatia 21, 3 (2006), 56–74

2006
[70]

Shari Lawrence Pﬂeeger and Deanna D Caputo. 2012. Lever aging behavioral science to mitigate cyber security risk. Computers & security 31, 4 (2012), 597– 611

2012
[71]

Isaac Prilleltensky and Geo ﬀrey Nelson. 2009. Community psychology: Advanc- ing social justice. (2009)

2009
[72]

V alerie Purdie-V aughns and Richard P Eibach. 2008. Int ersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group iden- tities. Sex roles 59 (2008), 377–391

2008
[73]

Angela Saini. 2019. Superior: the return of race science . Beacon Press

2019
[74]

Sara Salem. 2018. Intersectionality and its disconten ts: Intersectionality as trav- eling theory. European Journal of Women’s Studies 25, 4 (2018), 403–418

2018
[75]

Jukka Savolainen, Patrick J Casey, Justin P McBrayer, a nd Patricia Nayna Schw- erdtle. 2023. Positionality and Its Problems: Questioning the V alue of Reﬂex- ivity Statements in Research. Perspectives on Psychological Science (2023), 17456916221144988

2023
[76]

Ayden I Scheim and Greta R Bauer. 2019. The Intersection al Discrimination Index: Development and validation of measures of self-repo rted enacted and an- ticipated discrimination for intercategorical analysis. Social Science & Medicine 226 (2019), 225–235

2019
[77]

Ayden I Scheim, Greta R Bauer, João L Bastos, and Tonia Po teat. 2021. Advanc- ing intersectional discrimination measures for health dis parities research: proto- col for a bilingual mixed methods measurement study. JMIR Research Protocols 10, 8 (2021), e30987

2021
[78]

Max Schwarzer, Johan Samir Obando Ceron, Aaron Courvil le, Marc G Belle- mare, Rishabh Agarwal, and Pablo Samuel Castro. 2023. Bigge r, Better, Faster: Human-level Atari with human-level e ﬃciency. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 30365–30380

2023
[79]

K Shailaja, Banoth Seetharamulu, and MA Jabbar. 2018. M achine learning in healthcare: A review. In 2018 Second international conference on electronics, communication and aerospace technology (ICECA) . IEEE, 910–914

2018
[80]

Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Eve Tuck, and K Wayne Y ang. 2018. Indigenous and decolonizing studies in education: Mapping the long view . Routledge

2018
[81]

Weiwei Sun, Lingyong Y an, Xinyu Ma, Pengjie Ren, Dawei Y in, and Zhaochun Ren. 2023. Is ChatGPT Good at Search? Investigating Large La nguage Models as Re-Ranking Agent. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09542 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[82]

Anna Szlavi, Marit Fredrikke Hansen, Sandra Helen Husn es, and Tayana Uchôa Conte. 2023. Intersectionality in Computer Science: A Syst ematic Literature Review. In 2023 IEEE /ACM 4th Workshop on Gender Equity, Diversity, and In- clusion in Software Engineering (GEICSE) . IEEE, 9–16

2023
[83]

Natalia Villanueva-Rosales, Ruey Long Cheu, Ann Gates , Norma Rivera, Oscar Mondragon, Sergio Cabrera, Carlos Ferregut, Cesar Carrasc o, Soheil Nazarian, Heidi Taboada, et al. 2015. A collaborative, interdisciplinary initiative for a smart cities innovation network. In 2015 IE...

2015
[84]

Maggie Walter and Chris Andersen. 2013. Indigenous statistics: A quantitative research methodology. Taylor & Francis

2013
[85]

Zhiyuan Wan, Xin Xia, David Lo, and Gail C Murphy. 2019. H ow does machine learning change software development practices? IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 47, 9 (2019), 1857–1871

2019
[86]

Angelina Wang, Vikram V Ramaswamy, and Olga Russakovsk y. 2022. Towards intersectionality in machine learning: Including more ide ntities, handling under- representation, and performing evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Con- ference on Fairness, Accountability, and Tr...

2022
[87]

Jess Whittlestone, Kai Arulkumaran, and Matthew Crosb y. 2021. The societal implications of deep reinforcement learning. Journal of Artiﬁcial Intelligence Research 70 (2021), 1003–1030

2021
[2019]

Science 366, 6464 (2019), 447–453

Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage t he health of popula- tions. Science 366, 6464 (2019), 447–453

2019
[2022]

Social psychiatry and psychiatric epi- demiology (2022), 1–17

Latent variable and clustering methods in intersecti onality research: sys- tematic review of methods applications. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epi- demiology (2022), 1–17

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Linda Alco ﬀ. 1991. The problem of speaking for others. Cultural critique 20 (1991), 5–32

1991

[2] [2]

Nikol G Alexander-Floyd. 2012. Disappearing acts: Recl aiming intersectionality in the social sciences in a post—Black feminist era. Feminist Formations(2012), 1–25

2012

[3] [3]

Julia Angwin, Je ﬀLarson, Surya Mattu, and Lauren Kirchner. 2022. Machine bias. In Ethics of data and analytics . Auerbach Publications, 254–264

2022

[4] [4]

Gloria Anzaldúa et al. 2004. Borderlands/La Frontera. na

2004

[5] [5]

Greta Bauer, Lisa Bowleg, and Setareh Rouhani. 2014. Har nessing the power of intersectionality. Guidelines for Quantitative Intersectional Health Inequi ties Research 10 (2014), 0361684316654282

2014

[6] [6]

Greta R Bauer. 2014. Incorporating intersectionality t heory into population health research methodology: challenges and the potential to adva nce health equity. So- cial science & medicine 110 (2014), 10–17

2014

[7] [7]

Greta R Bauer, Siobhan M Churchill, Mayuri Mahendran, Ch antel Walwyn, Daniel Lizotte, and Alma Angelica Villa-Rueda. 2021. Inter sectionality in quan- titative research: A systematic review of its emergence and applications of theory and methods. SSM-population health 14 (2021), 100798

2021

[8] [8]

Greta R Bauer and Daniel J Lizotte. 2021. Artiﬁcial intel ligence, intersectionality, and the future of public health. , 98–100 pages

2021