J Med Libr Assoc. 2022 Apr 1;110(2):205-211. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2022.1289.
We recently showed that the gender detection tools NamSor, Gender API, and Wiki-Gendersort accurately predicted the gender of individuals with Western given names. Here, we aimed to evaluate the performance of these tools with Chinese given names in Pinyin format.
We constructed two datasets for the purpose of the study. File #1 was created by randomly drawing 20,000 names from a gender-labeled database of 52,414 Chinese given names in Pinyin format. File #2, which contained 9,077 names, was created by removing from File #1 all unisex names that we were able to identify (i.e., those that were listed in the database as both male and female names). We recorded for both files the number of correct classifications (correct gender assigned to a name), misclassifications (wrong gender assigned to a name), and nonclassifications (no gender assigned). We then calculated the proportion of misclassifications and nonclassifications (errorCoded).
For File #1, errorCoded was 53% for NamSor, 65% for Gender API, and 90% for Wiki-Gendersort. For File #2, errorCoded was 43% for NamSor, 66% for Gender API, and 94% for Wiki-Gendersort.
We found that all three gender detection tools inaccurately predicted the gender of individuals with Chinese given names in Pinyin format and therefore should not be used in this population.
我们最近发现 NamSor、Gender API 和 Wiki-Gendersort 等性别检测工具可以准确预测具有西方名字的个体的性别。在这里,我们旨在评估这些工具在中文拼音名字中的性能。
我们构建了两个数据集用于本研究。文件 #1 通过从 52414 个中文拼音名字的性别标记数据库中随机抽取 20000 个名字创建。文件 #2 包含 9077 个名字,是通过从文件 #1 中删除我们能够识别的所有中性名字(即那些在数据库中被列为男女名字的名字)创建的。我们为两个文件记录了正确分类的数量(正确分配给名字的性别)、错误分类的数量(错误分配给名字的性别)和未分类的数量(未分配性别)。然后,我们计算了错误分类和未分类的比例(错误编码)。
对于文件 #1,NamSor 的错误编码为 53%,Gender API 的错误编码为 65%,Wiki-Gendersort 的错误编码为 90%。对于文件 #2,NamSor 的错误编码为 43%,Gender API 的错误编码为 66%,Wiki-Gendersort 的错误编码为 94%。
我们发现所有三种性别检测工具都不准确地预测了具有中文拼音名字的个体的性别,因此不应该在这个人群中使用。