Papers › Statistical Methods for Auditing the Quality of Manual Content Reviews
Statistical Methods for Auditing the Quality of Manual Content Reviews
Xuan Yang, Andrew J Smart, Daniel Theron
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Large technology firms face the problem of moderating content on their online platforms for compliance with laws and policies. To accomplish this at the scale of billions of pieces of content per day, a combination of human and machine review are necessary to label content. Subjective judgement and human bias are of concern to both human annotated content as well as to auditors who may be employed to evaluate the quality of such annotations in conformance with law and/or policy. To address this concern, this paper presents a novel application of statistical analysis methods to identify human error and these sources of audit risk.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections