Design biases in NLP systems, such as performance differences for different populations, often stem from their creator’s positionality, i.e., views and lived experiences shaped by identity and background. Despite the prevalence and risks of design biases, they are hard to quantify because researcher, system, and dataset positionality is often unobserved. We introduce NLPositionality, a framework for characterizing design biases and quantifying the positionality of NLP datasets and models. Our framework continuously collects annotations from a diverse pool of volunteer participants on LabintheWild, and statistically quantifies alignment with dataset labels and model predictions. We apply NLPositionality to existing datasets and models for two tasks—social acceptability and hate speech detection. To date, we have collected 16,299 annotations in over a year for 600 instances from 1,096 annotators across 87 countries. We find that datasets and models align predominantly with Western, White, college-educated, and younger populations. Additionally, certain groups, such as non-binary people and non-native English speakers, are further marginalized by datasets and models as they rank least in alignment across all tasks. Finally, we draw from prior literature to discuss how researchers can examine their own positionality and that of their datasets and models, opening the door for more inclusive NLP systems.

Unfamiliar terminology and complex language can present barriers to understanding science. Natural language processing stands to help address these issues by automatically defining unfamiliar terms. We introduce a new task and dataset for defining scientific terms and controlling the complexity of generated definitions as a way of adapting to a specific reader’s background knowledge. We test four definition generation methods for this new task, finding that a sequence-to-sequence approach is most successful. We then explore the version of the task in which definitions are generated at a target complexity level. We introduce a novel reranking approach and find in human evaluations that it offers superior fluency while also controlling complexity, compared to several controllable generation baselines.

Mental health stigma prevents many individuals from receiving the appropriate care, and social psychology studies have shown that mental health tends to be overlooked in men. In this work, we investigate gendered mental health stigma in masked language models. In doing so, we operationalize mental health stigma by developing a framework grounded in psychology research: we use clinical psychology literature to curate prompts, then evaluate the models’ propensity to generate gendered words. We find that masked language models capture societal stigma about gender in mental health: models are consistently more likely to predict female subjects than male in sentences about having a mental health condition (32% vs. 19%), and this disparity is exacerbated for sentences that indicate treatment-seeking behavior. Furthermore, we find that different models capture dimensions of stigma differently for men and women, associating stereotypes like anger, blame, and pity more with women with mental health conditions than with men. In showing the complex nuances of models’ gendered mental health stigma, we demonstrate that context and overlapping dimensions of identity are important considerations when assessing computational models’ social biases.

Current story writing or story editing systems rely on human judgments of story quality for evaluating performance, often ignoring the subjectivity in ratings. We analyze the effect of author and reader characteristics and story writing setup on the quality of stories in a short storytelling task. To study this effect, we create and release STORIESINTHEWILD, containing 1,630 stories collected on a volunteer-based crowdsourcing platform. Each story is rated by three different readers, and comes paired with the author’s and reader’s age, gender, and personality. Our findings show significant effects of authors’ and readers’ identities, as well as writing setup, on story writing and ratings. Notably, compared to younger readers, readers age 45 and older consider stories significantly less creative and less entertaining. Readers also prefer stories written all at once, rather than in chunks, finding them more coherent and creative. We also observe linguistic differences associated with authors’ demographics (e.g., older authors wrote more vivid and emotional stories). Our findings suggest that reader and writer demographics, as well as writing setup, should be accounted for in story writing evaluations.

Communicating complex scientific ideas without misleading or overwhelming the public is challenging. While science communication guides exist, they rarely offer empirical evidence for how their strategies are used in practice. Writing strategies that can be automatically recognized could greatly support science communication efforts by enabling tools to detect and suggest strategies for writers. We compile a set of writing strategies drawn from a wide range of prescriptive sources and develop an annotation scheme allowing humans to recognize them. We collect a corpus of 128k science writing documents in English and annotate a subset of this corpus. We use the annotations to train transformer-based classifiers and measure the strategies’ use in the larger corpus. We find that the use of strategies, such as storytelling and emphasizing the most important findings, varies significantly across publications with different reader audiences.