Structural ageism in big data approaches

45Citations
Citations of this article
49Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Digital systems can track every activity. Their logs are the fundamental raw material of intelligent systems in big data approaches. However, big data approaches mainly use predictions and correlations that often fail in the prediction of minorities or invisibilize collectives, causing discriminatory decisions. While this discrimination has been documented regarding, sex, race and sexual orientation, age has received less attention. A critical review of the academic literature confirms that structural ageism also shapes big data approaches. The article identifies some instances in which ageism is in operation either implicitly or explicitly. Concretely, biased samples and biased tools tend to exclude the habits, interests and values of older people from algorithms and studies, which contributes to reinforcing structural ageism.

References Powered by Scopus

Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon

4268Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach

2426Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior

1993Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Digital Ageism: Challenges and Opportunities in Artificial Intelligence for Older Adults

142Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

AI ageism: a critical roadmap for studying age discrimination and exclusion in digitalized societies

73Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Ageism and technology: The role of internalized stereotypes

54Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rosales, A., & Fernández-Ardèvol, M. (2019, January 1). Structural ageism in big data approaches. Nordicom Review. Sciendo. https://doi.org/10.2478/nor-2019-0013

Readers over time

‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘2505101520

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 17

59%

Researcher 9

31%

Professor / Associate Prof. 2

7%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

3%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Social Sciences 11

50%

Nursing and Health Professions 4

18%

Medicine and Dentistry 4

18%

Computer Science 3

14%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
Blog Mentions: 1
News Mentions: 5

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0