It's more
about systemic bias, the ultimate source of funding unavoidably having some influence — eg by selecting which institutions get money.
Not exact matches
Science itself can drive our conversations
about the importance of diversity, as it provides us with the data to understand how
systemic bias and discrimination impact our communities and how best to change it.»
As we wrote back in June
about the
systemic threat created by passive strategies: «If a key sector failure, a geopolitical crisis, or even an unknown, black box
bias pulls an algorithmic risk trigger, will the herd run all at once?»
And third, if problems arise, we assume that we personally can not do much
about them, because they are too
systemic or, alternatively, are mostly caused by a few
biased people (who could be changed through specialized training).
Now for climate change work, we don't care so much
about the actual temperature, but do want to know
about the trend, so it is possible to create an alternative algorithm that is free from the
systemic biases caused by attempts to merge thousands of low grade temperature records together.
An excellent discussion of these
systemic biases can be found in an article by the prolific writer Ida Abbott (www.idaabbott.com/publications/articles) titled «How Political Dynamics Undermine Gender Balance in Law Firm Leadership and What Your Firm Must Do
About It.»