Score breakdown

Model Cards for Model Reporting

paper-0114 · paper · 2019

Margaret Mitchell et al.

The documentation standard for released models.

Abstract

Trained machine learning models are increasingly used to perform high-impact tasks in areas such as law enforcement, medicine, education, and employment. In order to clarify the intended use cases of machine learning models and minimize their usage in contexts for which they are not well suited, we recommend that released models be accompanied by documentation detailing their performance characteristics. In this paper, we propose a framework that we call model cards, to encourage such transparent model reporting. Model cards are short documents accompanying trained machine learning models that provide benchmarked evaluation in a variety of conditions, such as across different cultural, demographic, or phenotypic groups (e.g., race, geographic location, sex, Fitzpatrick skin type [15]) and intersectional groups (e.g., age and race, or sex and Fitzpatrick skin type) that are relevant to the intended application domains. Model cards also disclose the context in which models are intended to be used, details of the performance evaluation procedures, and other relevant information. While we focus primarily on human-centered machine learning models in the application fields of computer vision and natural language processing, this framework can be used to document any trained machine learning model. To solidify the concept, we provide cards for two supervised models: One trained to detect smiling faces in images, and one trained to detect toxic comments in text. We propose model cards as a step towards the responsible democratization of machine learning and related artificial intelligence technology, increasing transparency into how well artificial intelligence technology works. We hope this work encourages those releasing trained machine learning models to accompany model releases with similar detailed evaluation numbers and other relevant documentation. [OpenAlex]

Academic, score -0.1926

MetricStatusValueNorm.WeightContributionSourceConfidenceLicenseProvenance
citation_countpresent1708.00.0076840.50.003842OpenAlexhighOpenAlex, CC0 metadatalink
library_holdingsmissingrecorded as missing, penalized by rule, never imputed−0.1recorded as missing; penalized by rule, never imputed
readership_persistencepresent9.00.5714290.050.028571OpenAlexmediumOpenAlex, CC0 metadatalink
syllabus_adoptionsmissingrecorded as missing, penalized by rule, never imputed−0.125recorded as missing; penalized by rule, never imputed

Broad Influence, score 0.0301

MetricStatusValueNorm.WeightContributionSourceConfidenceLicenseProvenance
citation_countpresent1708.00.0076840.20.001537OpenAlexhighOpenAlex, CC0 metadatalink
library_holdingsmissingrecorded as missing, penalized by rule, never imputed−0.125recorded as missing; penalized by rule, never imputed
readership_persistencepresent9.00.5714290.40.228571OpenAlexmediumOpenAlex, CC0 metadatalink
syllabus_adoptionsmissingrecorded as missing, penalized by rule, never imputed−0.075recorded as missing; penalized by rule, never imputed

Governance Practitioner, score -0.2659

MetricStatusValueNorm.WeightContributionSourceConfidenceLicenseProvenance
citation_countpresent1708.00.0076840.250.001921OpenAlexhighOpenAlex, CC0 metadatalink
library_holdingsmissingrecorded as missing, penalized by rule, never imputed−0.15recorded as missing; penalized by rule, never imputed
readership_persistencepresent9.00.5714290.10.057143OpenAlexmediumOpenAlex, CC0 metadatalink
syllabus_adoptionsmissingrecorded as missing, penalized by rule, never imputed−0.175recorded as missing; penalized by rule, never imputed

A rank is not a verdict on intrinsic worth. It is a transparent output of declared evidence, weights, and missing-data rules at a specific release date.

Disagree with this rank or a number? Challenge it with your evidence. Every challenge gets a public identifier and a published resolution.