Spektrum Iran

Affective asymmetries in AI: Sentiment bias between English and Persian in harmonized LLM pipelines

Document Type : Original Research Paper

Authors

Michael Totaro 1
Leila Gheisi 2
Ehsan Shahghasemi 3

1 Department of Computer Science & Informatics, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, USA

2 PhD student in Communication, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, USA

3 Associate Professor, Department of Communication, The University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

10.22034/spektrum.2026.563602.1052
Abstract
In the contemporary landscape of crisis management, decision-makers are increasingly overwhelmed by the sheer volume, velocity, and variety of media data generated during emergencies. Traditional manual analytical methods are often insufficient to process this influx effectively, necessitating a paradigm shift toward advanced computational approaches. The primary goal of this study is to bridge the gap between technical data science and practical crisis communication by establishing a clear analytical link between specific machine learning (ML) paradigms and their operational capabilities. This article utilizes a narrative review methodology, underpinned by a theoretical framework grounded in machine learning. The study systematically synthesizes existing literature to categorize and analyze how distinct ML architectures—specifically supervised, unsupervised, and deep learning—are applied within the domain of media data analysis to support decision-making processes during crises. The analysis confirms that artificial intelligence significantly enhances crisis management effectiveness by automating media monitoring and generating actionable real-time insights. The findings delineate specific roles for different algorithms: supervised learning serves as the theoretical foundation for rapid misinformation detection and precise crisis classification. Conversely, unsupervised learning and deep learning are identified as critical tools for detecting data anomalies and recognizing emerging patterns, which are essential for the functionality of proactive early warning systems. While AI offers transformative potential, this study provides a critical reflection on significant implementation challenges. It highlights the “black box” problem—characterized by a lack of algorithmic interpretability—and inherent data biases as major ethical hurdles that can compromise accountability and fairness in crisis response. The present study contributes a structured framework for understanding AI’s role through a theoretical lens. It concludes that future implementation must prioritize explainable AI to balance computational efficiency with ethical responsibility.

Keywords

artificial intelligence
media data analysis
crisis management
crisis communication
machine learning
Subjects
Bhanvadia, S., Radha Saseendrakumar, B., Guo, J., Spadafore, M., Daniel, M., Lander, L., & Baxter, S. L. (2024). Evaluation of bias and gender/racial concordance based on sentiment analysis of narrative evaluations of clinical clerkships using natural language processing. BMC medical education, 24(1), 295. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05271-y
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (J. B. Thompson, Ed.; G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Harvard University Press.
Díaz, M., Johnson, I., Lazar, A., Piper, A. M., & Gergle, D. (2018, April). Addressing age-related bias in sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the 2018 chi conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-14). https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173986
Entman, R. M. (2007). Framing bias: Media in the distribution of power. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00336.x
Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor. St. Martin's Press.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman.
Hanna, M. G., Pantanowitz, L., Jackson, B., Palmer, O., Visweswaran, S., Pantanowitz, J., ... & Rashidi, H. H. (2025). Ethical and bias considerations in artificial intelligence/machine learning. Modern Pathology, 38(3), 100686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.modpat.2024.100686
Innis, H. A. (1951). The bias of communication. University of Toronto Press.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. McGraw-Hill.
Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. NYU Press.
Pessach, D., & Shmueli, E. (2022). A review on fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 55(3), 1-44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3494672
Radaideh, M. I., Kwon, O. H., & Radaideh, M. I. (2025). Fairness and social bias quantification in Large Language Models for sentiment analysis. Knowledge-Based Systems, 113569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2025.113569
Rozado, D. (2020). Wide range screening of algorithmic bias in word embedding models using large sentiment lexicons reveals underreported bias types. PloS one, 15(4), e0231189. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231189
Sabbar, S., & Habib Zadeh Khiyaban, S. (2023). Algorithms of Displacement: Emotional and Rhetorical Responses to AI-Driven Job Loss in Digital Public Discourse. International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research and Studies, 3(4), 1324-1331. https://doi.org/10.62225/2583049X.2023.3.4.5012
Salehi, K., Habib Zadeh Khiyaban, S., Sabbar, S. (2026). Artificial Intelligence and Crime Detection: A Critical Review. Cyberspace Studies. 10(1): 181-197. https://doi.org/10.22059/jcss.2025.402206.1179
Shahghasemi, E. (2025). AI; A Human Future. Journal of Cyberspace Studies, 9(1), 145-173. doi: 10.22059/jcss.2025.389027.1123
Shahghasemi, E., Gholami, F. & Alikhani, Z. (2025). Global patterns of social media use and political sentiment. Discover Global Society, 3, 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44282-025-00171-y
Tejani, A. S., Ng, Y. S., Xi, Y., & Rayan, J. C. (2024). Understanding and mitigating bias in imaging artificial intelligence. Radiographics, 44(5), e230067. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.230067
Thelwall, M. (2018). Gender bias in sentiment analysis. Online Information Review, 42(1), 45-57. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-05-2017-0139
van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006
Venkit, P. N., & Wilson, S. (2021). Identification of bias against people with disabilities in sentiment analysis and toxicity detection models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.13259. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2111.13259
Venugopal, J. P., Subramanian, A. A. V., Sundaram, G., Rivera, M., & Wheeler, P. (2024). A Comprehensive Approach to Bias Mitigation for Sentiment Analysis of Social Media Data. Applied Sciences, 14(23), 11471. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142311471
Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20024652
 
Spektrum Iran
Volume 38, Issue 2
AI and Cultural Sovereignty
July 2025
Pages 143-157

Editorial Board

Submit Manuscript

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us