The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 1 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks
Open accessAbstract
Many NLP applications require manual text annotations for a variety of tasks, notably to train classifiers or evaluate the performance of unsupervised models. Depending on the size and degree of complexity, the tasks may be conducted by crowd workers on platforms such as MTurk as well as trained annotators, such as research assistants. Using four samples of tweets and news articles ( n = 6,183), we show that ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for several annotation tasks, including relevance, stance, topics, and frame detection. Across the four datasets, the zero-shot accuracy of ChatGPT exceeds that of crowd workers by about 25 percentage points on average, while ChatGPT’s intercoder agreement exceeds that of both crowd workers and trained annotators for all tasks. Moreover, the per-annotation cost of ChatGPT is less than $0.003—about thirty times cheaper than MTurk. These results demonstrate the potential of large language models to drastically increase the efficiency of text classification.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Using four datasets of tweets and news articles (n = 6,183), the paper finds that zero-shot ChatGPT annotations outperform MTurk crowd workers on several text-annotation tasks and achieve higher intercoder agreement than both crowd workers and trained annotators. ChatGPT is also far cheaper, at less than $0.003 per annotation, about thirty times cheaper than MTurk.
Key findings
- Across four datasets, ChatGPT’s zero-shot accuracy exceeds MTurk’s by about 25 percentage points on average, and it outperforms MTurk for most tasks.
- ChatGPT’s intercoder agreement averages 91% at temperature = 1 and 97% at temperature = 0.2, compared with about 56% for MTurk and 79% for trained annotators.
- Relevance-task accuracy rates were 70% for content moderation tweets, 81% for content moderation news articles, 83% for US Congress tweets, and 59% for 2023 content moderation tweets.
- Per-annotation cost for ChatGPT is less than $0.003, about thirty times cheaper than MTurk. Correlations reported: intercoder agreement and accuracy r = 0.36; ChatGPT accuracy and trained-annotator intercoder agreement r = 0.46; ChatGPT overperformance vs. MTurk and trained-annotator intercoder agreement r = −0.37.
Methods
- Design: compare zero-shot ChatGPT annotations against MTurk crowd workers and trained annotators on the same codebooks and tasks, using trained annotators as the gold standard.
- Data: four datasets totaling n = 6,183, including a random sample of 2,382 content-moderation tweets from 2020–2021; 1,856 US Congress tweets from 2017–2022; 1,606 newspaper articles on content moderation from 2020–2021; and 500 tweets from January 2023, of which 339 were in English.
- Analysis: tasks included relevance, topic detection, stance, general frame detection, and policy frame detection. ChatGPT used the “gpt-3.5-turbo” API with temperature 1 and 0.2, two responses per temperature per tweet, and a new chat session for every tweet. MTurk workers were restricted to “MTurk Masters,” >90% HIT approval rate with at least 50 approved HITs, and US location. Metrics were accuracy against trained annotators and intercoder agreement.
Limitations
- The paper states that further research is needed to understand how ChatGPT and other LLMs perform in a broader range of contexts, and it lists future questions including multiple languages, few-shot learning, semiautomated labeling, chain-of-thought prompting, and comparison across LLM types.
- The paper states that in the 2023 sample, ChatGPT struggled with misclassifying tweets about specific user suspensions in the relevance task due to a lack of examples in the prompt, underscoring the importance of high-quality prompts.
- Evident from the text: the evaluation uses one ChatGPT model version (“gpt-3.5-turbo”) and does not report testing in languages other than English; the paper itself lists performance across multiple languages as a future question.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Figures
Verification
Claims the paper makes
10 Own result · 8 Own method · 7 Own interpretation · 2 No basis given · 1 Not checked yet
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Regarding accuracy, Fig. 1 shows that ChatGPT outperforms MTurk for most tasks across the four datasets.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“We find that across the four datasets, ChatGPT’s zero-shot accuracy is higher than that of MTurk for most tasks.”
§ ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ChatGPT’s intercoder agreement exceeds that of both crowd workers and trained annotators for all tasks.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“For all tasks, ChatGPT’s intercoder agreement exceeds that of both MTurk and trained annotators.”
§ ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks > Abstract
plaincorrelationaln = 4- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ChatGPT’s accuracy is positively correlated with the intercoder agreement of trained annotators (Pearson’s r = 0.46), suggesting better performance for easier tasks.”
§ ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks > Results
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Conversely, ChatGPT’s outperformance of MTurk is negatively correlated with the intercoder agreement of trained annotators (Pearson’s r = -0.37), potentially indicating stronger overperformance for more complex tasks.”
§ ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks > Results
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Across the four datasets, the zero-shot accuracy of ChatGPT exceeds that of crowd workers by about 25 percentage points on average”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“On average, ChatGPT’s accuracy exceeds that of MTurk by about 25 percentage points.”
§ ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks > Abstract
plaincorrelationaln = 4- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The correlation between intercoder agreement and accuracy is positive (Pearson’s r = 0.36).”
§ ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This paper demonstrates the potential of LLMs to transform text-annotation procedures for a variety of tasks common to many research projects.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · boosted
“These results demonstrate the potential of large language models to drastically increase the efficiency of text classification.”
§ ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks > Discussion
boostedconditionaln = 4- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · boosted
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While these findings do not suggest that memorization is a major issue, they underscore the importance of high-quality prompts.”
§ ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks > Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The 2023 tweets were not included in ChatGPT's training data.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Conversely, ChatGPT’s outperformance of MTurk is negatively correlated with the intercoder agreement of trained annotators (Pearson’s r = -0.37), potentially indicating stronger overperformance for more complex tasks.”
§ ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks > Results
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ChatGPT’s accuracy is positively correlated with the intercoder agreement of trained annotators (Pearson’s r = 0.46), suggesting better performance for easier tasks.”
§ ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks > Results
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 8
- Probably not a substantial claim. 10
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the 2023 sample, ChatGPT performed much better than MTurk in the second task but struggled with misclassifying tweets about specific user suspensions in the relevance task due to a lack of examples in the prompt.”
§ ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On average, intercoder agreement is about 56% for MTurk, 79% for trained annotators, 91% for ChatGPT with temperature = 1, and 97% for ChatGPT with temperature = 0.2.”
§ ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks > Results
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accuracy rates for relevance tasks, with two classes (relevant/irrelevant) are 70% for content moderation tweets, 81% for content moderation news articles, 83% for US Congress tweets, and 59% for 2023 content moderation tweets.”
§ ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Using four samples of tweets and news articles (n = 6,183), we show that ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for several annotation tasks, including relevance, stance, topics, and frame detection.”
§ ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks > Abstract
plainn = 4- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, the per-annotation cost of ChatGPT is less than $0.003—about thirty times cheaper than MTurk.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“ChatGPT’s per-annotation cost is about $0.003 or a third of a cent—about thirty times cheaper than MTurk, with higher quality.”
§ ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks > Abstract
plainn = 6,183- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The evidence is consistent across different types of texts and time periods.”
§ ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The sample size was determined by the number of texts needed to build a training set for a machine learning classifier.”
§ ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks > Materials and Methods > Datasets.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This suggests that a lower temperature value may be preferable for annotation tasks, as it seems to increase consistency without decreasing accuracy.”
§ ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks > Results
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, we ensured that no worker could annotate more than 20% of the tweets for a given task.”
§ ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks > Materials and Methods > Crowd Workers.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We intentionally avoided adding any ChatGPT-specific prompts to ensure comparability between ChatGPT and MTurk crowd workers.”
§ ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks > Materials and Methods > ChatGPT.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Moreover, some of the tasks involve a large number of classes and exhibit lower levels of intercoder agreement, which indicates a higher degree of annotation difficulty (11).”
§ ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks > Results
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] P. S. Bayerl, K. I. Paul, What determines inter-coder agreement in manual annotations? A meta-analytic investigation Comput. Linguist. 37, 699– 725 (2011).
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As with the trained human annotators, each tweet was annotated by two different crowd workers.”
§ ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks > Materials and Methods > Crowd Workers.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The coders annotated the tweets independently task by task.”
§ ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks > Materials and Methods > Trained Annotators.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, we computed average accuracy (i.e., percentage of correct predictions), that is, the number of correctly classified instances over the total number of cases to be classified, using trained human annotations as our gold standard and considering only texts that both annotators agreed upon.”
§ ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks > Materials and Methods > Evaluation Metrics.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To ensure annotation quality, we restricted access to the tasks to workers who are classified as “MTurk Masters” by Amazon, who have an HIT (Human Intelligence Task) approval rate greater than 90% with at least 50 approved HITs, and who are located in the United States.”
§ ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks > Materials and Methods > Crowd Workers.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We created a new chat session for every tweet to ensure that the ChatGPT results are not influenced by the history of annotations.”
§ ChatGPT outperforms crowd workers for text-annotation tasks > Materials and Methods > ChatGPT.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
The trained annotators' annotations constitute a valid gold standard for correctness.
“using trained human annotations as our gold standard”
“using our trained annotators as a benchmark”
The paper relies on this without support.
The 2023 tweets were not included in ChatGPT's training data.
“a new sample of tweets posted in 2023 to address the concern that ChatGPT might be relying on memorization for texts potentially included in the model’s training dataset.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“LLMs have been shown to perform well on diverse text-analysis tasks 36 , often matching or exceeding state-of-the-art models and crowd workers 37,38 , even with zero-shot prompts 39 .”
From Quantifying the prevalence and impact of overreaching causal claims in social science (2026) · cites this paper as [38]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“we employ GPT-4 for automated evaluation, where both the generated hypotheses and the provided background are evaluated across these aspects.”
From Large Language Models as Biomedical Hypothesis Generators: A Comprehensive Evaluation (2024) · cites this paper as Gilardi et al., 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“These models mitigate many of the above mentioned limitations associated with human coders by leveraging their computational efficiency, consistency, and scalability [34–36].”
From The quantum technology job market: data driven analysis of 3641 job posts (2026) · cites this paper as [34]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“LLM-assisted annotation shows a similar tension: LLMs can match or outperform crowd workers on some text-classification tasks, yet may introduce systematic bias in qualitative coding (Ashwin et al., 2025;Gilardi et al., 2023).”
From Beyond Human-Likeness: Mapping the Scientific Critique Profiles of LLMs and Human Reviewers (2026) · cites this paper as Gilardi et al., 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Prior studies have also reported that LLM evaluations can be competitive with crowdworker annotations (Gilardi et al., 2023).”
From MAPLE: Multi-Aspect Panels of LLM Evaluators for Open-Ended Questions (2026) · cites this paper as Gilardi et al., 2023
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“LLM-assisted annotation shows a similar tension: LLMs can match or outperform crowd workers on some text-classification tasks, yet may introduce systematic bias in qualitative coding (Ashwin et al., 2025;Gilardi et al., 2023).”
From Beyond Human-Likeness: Mapping the Scientific Critique Profiles of LLMs and Human Reviewers (2026) · cites this paper as Gilardi et al., 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“They find this model performs better than human workers trained with such materials on Amazon Mechanical Turk—though such coders are known to be less accurate than those trained directly by researchers in small group settings.”
From Can Generative AI improve social science? (2024) · cites this paper as [51]
In the citing paper
“Gilardi et al. argue GPT 3.5-turbo can accurately measure the topic of tweets, the stance or opinions of their authors, and the “frames” used to organize the message in a narrative manner (51).”
From Can Generative AI improve social science? (2024) · cites this paper as [51]
In the citing paper
“Some LLMs have been found as good as human annotators [41] in some tasks.”
From Harnessing the power of llms in practice: a survey on chatGPT and beyond (2024) · cites this paper as [41]
Citations
Cites
Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners
Kojima, T., Gu, S. S., Reid, M., Matsuo, Y., & Iwasawa, Y. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.11916 · Cited by 2,013
An MTurk Crisis? Shifts in Data Quality and the Impact on Study Results
Chmielewski, M., & Kucker, S. C. (2020) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/1948550619875149 · Cited by 1,027
Out of One, Many: Using Language Models to Simulate Human Samples
Argyle, L. P., Busby, E. C., Fulda, N., Gubler, J. R., Rytting, C., & Wingate, D. (2023) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1017/pan.2023.2 · Cited by 783
Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3
Binz, M., & Schulz, E. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2218523120 · Cited by 559 · cited 2×
“…very well for a wide range of purposes, including ideological scaling (Wu et al., 2023), the classification of legislative proposals (Nay, 2023), the resolution of cognitive psychology tasks, (Binz and Schulz, 2023), and the simulation of human samples for survey research (Argyle et al., 2023).”
BackgroundCrowd-sourced Text Analysis: Reproducible and Agile Production of Political Data
Benoit, K. R., Conway, D., Lauderdale, B. E., Laver, M., & Mikhaylov, S. (2016) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055416000058 · Cited by 296
Huang, F., Kwak, H., & An, J. (2023) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3543873.3587368 · Cited by 247
Huang, F., Kwak, H., & An, J. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.07736 · Cited by 231
The Media Frames Corpus: Annotations of Frames Across Issues
Card, D., Boydstun, A. E., Gross, J. H., Resnik, P., & Smith, N. A. (2015) · doi:10.3115/v1/p15-2072 · Cited by 224
Kuzman, T., Mozetič, I., & Ljubešić, N. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.03953 · Cited by 137
What Determines Inter-Coder Agreement in Manual Annotations? A Meta-Analytic Investigation
Bayerl, P. S., & Paul, K. I. (2011) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00074 · Cited by 126
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- M. Desmond, E. Duesterwald, K. Brimijoin, M. Brachman, Q. Pan, Semi-automateddatalabeling, in NeurIPS 2020 Competition and Demonstration Track, (PMLR, 2021), pp. 156–169.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Feuerriegel, S., Hartmann, J., Janiesch, C., & Zschech, P. (2024) · Business & Information Systems Engineering · doi:10.1007/s12599-023-00834-7 · Cited by 2,267
“…even replace— traditional crowdsourcing where annotations or other knowledge tasks are handled by a larger pool of crowd workers, for example in social media content annotation (Gilardi et al. 2023) or market research on willingness-to-pay for services and products (Brand et al. 2023).”
Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena
Zheng, L., Chiang, W.-L., Sheng, Y., Zhuang, S., Wu, Z., Zhuang, Y., Lin, Z., Li, Z., Li, D., Xing, E. P., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.05685 · Cited by 1,888
“As LLMs continue to improve, they show potential in replacing human annotators in many tasks [14, 17].”
BackgroundHarnessing the power of llms in practice: a survey on chatGPT and beyond
Yang, J., Jin, H., Tang, R., Han, X., Feng, Q., Jiang, H., Zhong, S., Yin, B., & Hu, X. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data · doi:10.1145/3649506 · Cited by 644
Can Large Language Models Transform Computational Social Science?
Ziems, C., Held, W., Shaikh, O., Chen, J., Zhang, Z., & Yang, D. (2024) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00502 · Cited by 585
Can Generative AI improve social science?
Bail, C. A. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2314021121 · Cited by 369
Durably reducing conspiracy beliefs through dialogues with AI
Costello, T. H., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2024) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adq1814 · Cited by 354
A Survey of GPT-3 Family Large Language Models Including ChatGPT and GPT-4
Kalyan, K. S. (2024) · Natural Language Processing Journal · doi:10.1016/j.nlp.2023.100048 · Cited by 335
Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?
Chiang, C.-H., & Lee, H.-Y. (2023) · Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.870 · Cited by 331
Al Naqbi, H., Bahroun, Z., & Ahmed, V. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16031166 · Cited by 302
Large Language Models for Information Retrieval: A Survey
Zhu, Y., Yuan, H., Wang, S., Liu, J., Liu, W., Deng, C., Chen, H., Liu, Z., Dou, Z., & Wen, J.-R. (2026) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3748304 · Cited by 225
Synthetic Replacements for Human Survey Data? The Perils of Large Language Models
Bisbee, J., Clinton, J. D., Dorff, C., Kenkel, B., & Larson, J. M. (2024) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1017/pan.2024.5 · Cited by 209
Driving with LLMs: Fusing Object-Level Vector Modality for Explainable Autonomous Driving
Chen, L., Sinavski, O., Hünermann, J., Karnsund, A., Willmott, A. J., Birch, D., Maund, D., & Shotton, J. (2024) · Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/icra57147.2024.10611018 · Cited by 287
Mitigating Object Hallucinations in Large Vision-Language Models through Visual Contrastive Decoding
Leng, S., Zhang, H., Chen, G., Li, X., Lu, S., Miao, C., & Bing, L. (2024) · 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.01316 · Cited by 199
Ash, E., & Hansen, S. (2023) · Annual Review of Economics · doi:10.1146/annurev-economics-082222-074352 · Cited by 197
Wang, A., Morgenstern, J., & Dickerson, J. P. (2025) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-025-00986-z · Cited by 311
Sycophantic AI decreases prosocial intentions and promotes dependence
Cheng, M., Lee, C., Khadpe, P., Yu, S., Han, D., & Jurafsky, D. (2026) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aec8352 · Cited by 185
“…we prompt GPT-4o with detailed instructions to assign a binary label to each prompt–response pair, following best practices for the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm (Zheng et al., 2023; Dubois et al., 2023; Gilardi et al., 2023; Ziems et al., 2024); full details of the LLM judges are in Appendix B.”
Perspectives on Large Language Models for Relevance Judgment
Faggioli, G., Dietz, L., Clarke, C. L. A., Demartini, G., Hagen, M., Hauff, C., Kando, N., Kanoulas, E., Potthast, M., Stein, B., et al. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGIR International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3578337.3605136 · Cited by 184
Large Language Models can Accurately Predict Searcher Preferences
Thomas, P., Spielman, S., Craswell, N., & Mitra, B. (2024) · Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3626772.3657707 · Cited by 168
A scoping review of ChatGPT research in accounting and finance
Dong, M., Stratopoulos, T. C., & Wang, V. X. (2024) · International Journal of Accounting Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.accinf.2024.100715 · Cited by 191
LLM-based NLG Evaluation: Current Status and Challenges
Gao, M., Hu, X., Yin, X., Ruan, J., Pu, X., & Wan, X. (2025) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00561 · Cited by 243
LLM-in-the-loop: Leveraging Large Language Model for Thematic Analysis
Dai, S.-C., Xiong, A., & Ku, L. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.669 · Cited by 215
Is GPT-3 a Good Data Annotator?
Ding, B., Qin, C., Liu, L., Chia, Y. K., Li, B., Joty, S., & Bing, L. (2023) · Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.626 · Cited by 149
AI for social science and social science of AI: A survey
Xu, R. F., Sun, Y., Ren, M., Guo, S., Pan, R., Lin, H., Sun, L., & Han, X. (2024) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103665 · Cited by 174
Testing the Reliability of ChatGPT for Text Annotation and Classification: A Cautionary RemarkPreprint
Reiss, M. (2023) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/rvy5p · Cited by 149
Sedkaoui, S., & Benaichouba, R. (2026) · European Journal of Innovation Management · doi:10.1108/ejim-02-2024-0129 · Cited by 142
Using natural language processing to analyse text data in behavioural science
Feuerriegel, S., Maarouf, A., Bär, D., Geissler, D., Schweisthal, J., Pröllochs, N., Robertson, C. E., Rathje, S., Hartmann, J., Mohammad, S. M., et al. (2025) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-024-00392-z · Cited by 140
Human-LLM Collaborative Annotation Through Effective Verification of LLM Labels
Wang, X., Kim, H., Rahman, S., Mitra, K., & Miao, Z. (2024) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3641960 · Cited by 188
Enhancing Chat Language Models by Scaling High-quality Instructional Conversations
Ding, N., Chen, Y., Xu, B., Qin, Y., Hu, S., Liu, Z., Sun, M., & Zhou, B. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.183 · Cited by 130
Employing large language models in survey research
Jansen, B. J. J., Jung, S., & Salminen, J. O. (2023) · Natural Language Processing Journal · doi:10.1016/j.nlp.2023.100020 · Cited by 151
Törnberg, P. (2024) · Social Science Computer Review · doi:10.1177/08944393241286471 · Cited by 173
Large language models for generating medical examinations: systematic review
Artsi, Y., Sorin, V., Konen, E., Glicksberg, B. S., Nadkarni, G., & Klang, E. (2024) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-024-05239-y · Cited by 128
Zhang, R., Li, H., Meng, H., Zhan, J., Gan, H., & Lee, Y.-C. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713429 · Cited by 123
A Comprehensive Survey of Artificial Intelligence Techniques for Talent Analytics
Qin, C., Zhang, L., Cheng, Y., Zha, R., Shen, D., Zhang, Q., Chen, X., Sun, Y., Zhu, C., Zhu, H., et al. (2025) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/jproc.2025.3572744 · Cited by 144
Li, L., Fan, L., Atreja, S., & Hemphill, L. (2024) · ACM Transactions on the Web · doi:10.1145/3643829 · Cited by 139
Large language models as a substitute for human experts in annotating political text
Heseltine, M., & von Hohenberg, B. C. (2024) · Research & Politics · doi:10.1177/20531680241236239 · Cited by 145
Exploring the role of large language models in the scientific method: from hypothesis to discovery
Zhang, Y., Khan, S. A., Mahmud, A., Yang, H., Lavin, A., Levin, M. G., Frey, J. G., Dunnmon, J., Evans, J., Bundy, A., et al. (2025) · npj Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s44387-025-00019-5 · Cited by 160
Nasution, A. H., & Onan, A. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3402809 · Cited by 124
K2: A Foundation Language Model for Geoscience Knowledge Understanding and Utilization
Deng, C., Zhang, T., He, Z., Chen, Q., Shi, Y., Xu, Y. X., Fu, L., Zhang, W., Wang, X., Zhou, C., et al. (2024) · ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM) · doi:10.1145/3616855.3635772 · Cited by 104
Advancing entity recognition in biomedicine via instruction tuning of large language models
Keloth, V. K., Hu, Y., Xie, Q., Peng, X., Wang, Y., Zheng, A., Selek, M., Raja, K., Wei, C. H., Jin, Q., et al. (2024) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btae163 · Cited by 104
Transforming boundaries: how does ChatGPT change knowledge work?
Ritala, P., Ruokonen, M., & Ramaul, L. (2023) · Journal of Business Strategy · doi:10.1108/jbs-05-2023-0094 · Cited by 127
The political preferences of LLMs
Rozado, D. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0306621 · Cited by 101
Do LLMs Exhibit Human-like Response Biases? A Case Study in Survey Design
Tjuatja, L., Chen, V., Wu, T., Talwalkwar, A., & Neubig, G. (2024) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00685 · Cited by 171
Yu, D., Li, L., Su, H., & Fuoli, M. (2024) · International Journal of Corpus Linguistics · doi:10.1075/ijcl.23087.yu · Cited by 115
Ramaul, L., Ritala, P., & Ruokonen, M. (2024) · Business Horizons · doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2024.05.006 · Cited by 116
Open Problems and Fundamental Limitations of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback
Casper, S., Davies, X., Shi, C., Gilbert, T. K., Scheurer, J., Rando, J., Freedman, R., Korbak, T., Lindner, D., Freire, P., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.15217 · Cited by 101
“…feedback [Bai et al., 2022b, Saunders et al., 2022, Ye et al., 2023, Kim et al., 2023, Akyürek et al., 2023, Madaan et al., 2023, Chen et al., 2023, Gilardi et al., 2023] with research agendas like Recursive Reward Modeling [Leike et al., 2018] and AI Safety via debate [Irving et al., 2018, Du et…”
Wu, S., Liu, Y., Ruan, M., Chen, S., & Xie, X. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-98385-2 · Cited by 116
A tutorial on open-source large language models for behavioral science
Hussain, Z., Binz, M., Mata, R., & Wulff, D. U. (2024) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-024-02455-8 · Cited by 111
The Parrot Dilemma: Human-Labeled vs. LLM-augmented Data in Classification Tasks
Møller, A. G., Pera, A., Dalsgaard, J. A., & Aiello, L. M. (2024) · Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.eacl-short.17 · Cited by 129
A Large Language Model Approach to Educational Survey Feedback Analysis
Parker, M. J., Anderson, C., Stone, C., & Oh, Y. (2024) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-024-00414-0 · Cited by 93
Evaluation of LLM-based chatbots for OSINT-based Cyber Threat Awareness
Shafee, S., Bessani, A., & Ferreira, P. (2024) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2024.125509 · Cited by 101
Raza, S., Paulen-Patterson, D., & Ding, C. (2025) · Knowledge and Information Systems · doi:10.1007/s10115-024-02321-1 · Cited by 88
Watch Your Language: Investigating Content Moderation with Large Language Models
Kumar, D., AbuHashem, Y. A., & Durumeric, Z. (2024) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v18i1.31358 · Cited by 122
TnT-LLM: Text Mining at Scale with Large Language Models
Wan, M., Safavi, T., Jauhar, S. K., Kim, Y., Counts, S., Neville, J., Suri, S., Shah, C. S., White, R. W., Yang, L., et al. (2024) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3637528.3671647 · Cited by 110
Open-source LLMs for text annotation: a practical guide for model setting and fine-tuning
Alizadeh, M., Kubli, M., Samei, Z., Dehghani, S., Zahedivafa, M., Bermeo, J. D., Korobeynikova, M., & Gilardi, F. (2025) · Journal of Computational Social Science · doi:10.1007/s42001-024-00345-9 · Cited by 80
Self-citationGPTAraEval: A Comprehensive Evaluation of ChatGPT on Arabic NLP
Khondaker, M. T. I., Waheed, A., Nagoudi, E. M. B., & Abdul-Mageed, M. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.16 · Cited by 89
Urman, A., & Makhortykh, M. (2024) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2024.102211 · Cited by 99
Lossio-Ventura, J. A., Weger, R., Lee, A. Y., Guinee, E. P., Chung, J. Y., Atlas, L. Y., Linos, E., & Pereira, F. (2023) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/50150 · Cited by 77
ClusterLLM: Large Language Models as a Guide for Text Clustering
Zhang, Y., Wang, Z., & Shang, J. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.858 · Cited by 110
Scaling hermeneutics: a guide to qualitative coding with LLMs for reflexive content analysis
Dunivin, Z. O. (2025) · EPJ Data Science · doi:10.1140/epjds/s13688-025-00548-8 · Cited by 95
How should the advancement of large language models affect the practice of science?
Binz, M., Alaniz, S., Roskies, A., Aczel, B., Bergstrom, C. T., Allen, C., Schad, D., Wulff, D., West, J. D., Zhang, Q., et al. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2401227121 · Cited by 74
Wang, R. E., & Demszky, D. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.03090 · Cited by 74
Veselovsky, V., Ribeiro, M. H., & West, R. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.07899 · Cited by 73
“Further, an ever-increasing body of work illustrates the good performance of LLMs as proxies for human labeling (Wang et al., 2023; Gilardi et al., 2023; Ziems et al., 2023) and for generating high-quality text (which is, however, often factually inaccurate) that has captured the imagination of the…”
SMILE: Single-turn to Multi-turn Inclusive Language Expansion via ChatGPT for Mental Health Support
Qiu, H., He, H., Zhang, S., Li, A., & Lan, Z. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.34 · Cited by 72
Uncovering the semantics of concepts using GPT-4
Mens, G. L., Kovács, B., Hannan, M. T., & Pros, G. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2309350120 · Cited by 83
AIGC-empowered smart manufacturing: Prospects and challenges
Leng, J., Zheng, K., Li, R. C., Chen, C., Wang, B., Liu, Q., Chen, X., & Shen, W. (2025) · Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing · doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2025.103076 · Cited by 74
Generative Artificial Intelligence in Qualitative Data Analysis: Analyzing—Or Just Chatting?
Nguyen, D. C., & Welch, C. (2025) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/10944281251377154 · Cited by 81
The Illusion of Artificial Inclusion
Agnew, W. S., Bergman, A. S., Chien, J., Díaz, M., El-Sayed, S., Pittman, J., Mohamed, S., & McKee, K. R. (2024) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642703 · Cited by 103
Going Against the Grain: Climate Change as a Wedge Issue for the Radical Right
DICKSON, Z. P., & HOBOLT, S. B. (2024) · Comparative Political Studies · doi:10.1177/00104140241271297 · Cited by 76
ThinkRepair: Self-Directed Automated Program Repair
Yin, X., Ni, C., Wang, S., Li, Z., Zeng, L., & Yang, X. (2024) · Proceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis · doi:10.1145/3650212.3680359 · Cited by 68
Karjus, A. (2025) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-025-04503-w · Cited by 99
Fighting Fire with Fire: Can ChatGPT Detect AI-generated Text?
Bhattacharjee, A., & Liu, H. (2024) · ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter · doi:10.1145/3655103.3655106 · Cited by 65
ChatGPT and finetuned BERT: A comparative study for developing intelligent design support systems
Qiu, Y., & Jin, Y. (2023) · Intelligent Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.iswa.2023.200308 · Cited by 74
Can Generative AI Improve Social Science?
Bail, C. A. (2023) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/rwtzs · Cited by 369
Advanced Design of Soft Robots with Artificial Intelligence
Cao, Y., Xu, B., Li, B., & Fu, H. C. (2024) · Nano-Micro Letters · doi:10.1007/s40820-024-01423-3 · Cited by 67
Li, H., & Tian, F. (2026) · Group Decision and Negotiation · doi:10.1007/s10726-026-09980-1 · Cited by 78
Updating “The Future of Coding”: Qualitative Coding with Generative Large Language Models
Than, N., Fan, L., Law, T., Nelson, L. K., & McCall, L. (2025) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/00491241251339188 · Cited by 63
Leveraging Large Language Models for NLG Evaluation: Advances and Challenges
Li, Z. K., Xu, X., Shen, T., Xu, C., Gu, J.-C., Lai, Y., Tao, C., & Ma, S. (2024) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.896 · Cited by 109
Castellanos, A., Jiang, H., Gomes, P. J., VanderMeer, D. E., & Castillo, A. (2025) · JMIR AI · doi:10.2196/64447 · Cited by 69
From Sparse to Dense: GPT-4 Summarization with Chain of Density Prompting
Adams, G., Fabbri, A. R., Ladhak, F., Lehman, E., & Elhadad, N. (2023) · Workshop on New Frontiers in Summarization (NewSum) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.newsum-1.7 · Cited by 78
The dangers of using proprietary LLMs for research
Ollion, É., Shen, R., Macanovic, A., & Chatelain, A. (2024) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-023-00783-6 · Cited by 62
Telco-RAG: Navigating the Challenges of Retrieval Augmented Language Models for Telecommunications
Bornea, A.-L., Ayed, F., Domenico, A. D., Piovesan, N., & Maatouk, A. (2024) · Globecom · doi:10.1109/globecom52923.2024.10901158 · Cited by 62
Leveraging ChatGPT for Efficient Fact-CheckingPreprint
Hoes, E., Altay, S., & Bermeo, J. (2023) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/qnjkf · Cited by 61
Kobiella, C., Flores López, Y. S., Waltenberger, F., Draxler, F., & Schmidt, A. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3641964 · Cited by 57
The simulation of judgment in LLMs
Loru, E., Nudo, J., Di Marco, N., Santirocchi, A., Atzeni, R., Cinelli, M., Cestari, V., Rossi-Arnaud, C., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2518443122 · Cited by 57
Li, M., Shi, T., Ziems, C., Kan, M., Chen, N. F., Liu, Z., & Yang, D. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.92 · Cited by 92
Large Language Models for Text Classification: From Zero-Shot Learning to Instruction-Tuning
Chae, Y., & Davidson, T. (2025) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/00491241251325243 · Cited by 72
Using Large Language Models for Qualitative Analysis can Introduce Serious Bias
Ashwin, J., Chhabra, A., & Rao, V. (2023) · World Bank policy research working paper · doi:10.1596/1813-9450-10597 · Cited by 57
Quilt-1M: One Million Image-Text Pairs for Histopathology
Ikezogwo, W. O., Seyfioglu, M. S., Ghezloo, F., Geva, D. S. C., Mohammed, F. S., Anand, P. K., Krishna, R., & Shapiro, L. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.11207 · Cited by 55
From nCoder to ChatGPT: From Automated Coding to Refining Human Coding
Zambrano, A. F., Liu, X., Barany, A., Baker, R. S., Kim, J., & Nasiar, N. (2023) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47014-1_32 · Cited by 54
Kim, J. H., Kim, S. K., Choi, J., & Lee, Y. (2024) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076241227132 · Cited by 56
Prevalence and Prevention of Large Language Model Use in Crowd Work
Veselovsky, V., Ribeiro, M. H., Cozzolino, P. J., Gordon, A., Rothschild, D. M., & West, R. (2025) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3685527 · Cited by 73
Xu, Q., Qiu, F., Zhou, G., Zhang, C., Ding, K., Chang, F., Lu, F., Yu, Y., Ma, D., & Liu, J. (2025) · Advanced Engineering Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.aei.2025.103244 · Cited by 57
The use of LLMs to annotate data in management research: Foundational guidelines and warnings
Carlson, N. A., & Burbano, V. (2025) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.70023 · Cited by 65
Using proprietary language models in academic research requires explicit justification
Palmer, A., Smith, N. A., & Spirling, A. (2023) · Nature Computational Science · doi:10.1038/s43588-023-00585-1 · Cited by 51
Sottana, A., Liang, B., Zou, K., & Yuan, Z. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.543 · Cited by 76
Start Generating: Harnessing Generative Artificial Intelligence for Sociological Research
Davidson, T. (2024) · Socius Sociological Research for a Dynamic World · doi:10.1177/23780231241259651 · Cited by 56
Positioning Political Texts with Large Language Models by Asking and Averaging
Mens, G. L., & Gallego, A. (2025) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1017/pan.2024.29 · Cited by 61
Wiest, I. C., Wolf, F., Leßmann, M.-E., van Treeck, M., Ferber, D., Zhu, J., Boehme, H., Bressem, K. K., Ulrich, H., Ebert, M., et al. (2025) · npj Precision Oncology · doi:10.1038/s41698-025-01103-4 · Cited by 64
Attack Prompt Generation for Red Teaming and Defending Large Language Models
Deng, B., Wang, W., Feng, F., Deng, Y., Wang, Q., & He, X. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.143 · Cited by 106
Metadata
- Authors
- Gilardi, F., Alizadeh, M., & Kubli, M.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gilardi, Fabrizio
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2023-07-18
- Volume
- 120
- Issue
- 30
- Pages
- e2305016120-e2305016120
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC10372638
- OpenAlex
- W4384662964
- Cited by
- 1,197
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 440 · 2025: 356 · 2024: 274 · 2023: 125
- FWCI
- 554.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
- Funders
- EC | European Research Council (883121)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, large language models, textual annotation, crowd workers, Amazon Mechanical Turk, automatic annotation, inter-coder agreement, annotation cost, stance detection, topic extraction, frame detection, tweets, news articles, text classification
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
