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
Items 101–200 of 1,025
Value Kaleidoscope: Engaging AI with Pluralistic Human Values, Rights, and Duties
Sorensen, T., Jiang, L., Hwang, J. D., Levine, S., Pyatkin, V., West, P., Dziri, N., Lu, X., Rao, K., Bhagavatula, C., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i18.29970 · Cited by 101
A Primer for Evaluating Large Language Models in Social-Science Research
Abdurahman, S., Ziabari, A. S., Moore, A. K., Bartels, D. M., & Dehghani, M. (2025) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/25152459251325174 · Cited by 66
Wang, R., & Demszky, D. (2023) · EdArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/5vrby · Cited by 74
Query Performance Prediction Using Relevance Judgments Generated by Large Language Models
Meng, C., Arabzadeh, N., Askari, A., Aliannejadi, M., & de Rijke, M. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3736402 · Cited by 61
Makhortykh, M., Zucker, E. M., Simon, D. J., Bultmann, D., & Ulloa, R. (2023) · Discover Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1007/s44163-023-00072-6 · Cited by 48
Automated Annotation with Generative AI Requires Validation
Pangakis, N., Wolken, S., & Fasching, N. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.00176 · Cited by 47
“Gilardi et al. (2023) claim that ChatGPT outperforms MTurkers on a variety of annotation tasks.”
Hashemi, H., Eisner, J., Rosset, C., Van Durme, B., & Kedzie, C. (2024) · Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.745 · Cited by 47
Measuring What is Top of MindPreprint
Haaland, I., Roth, C., Stantcheva, S., & Wohlfart, J. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4827419 · Cited by 47
From Optimism to Concern: Unveiling Sentiments and Perceptions Surrounding ChatGPT on Twitter
Demirel, S., Kahraman-Gokalp, E., & Gündüz, U. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2392964 · Cited by 46
Zambrano Chaves, J. M., Huang, S.-C., Xu, Y., Xu, H., Usuyama, N., Zhang, S., Wang, F., Xie, Y., Khademi, M., Yang, Z., et al. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-58344-x · Cited by 45
“We thus explore the utility of an large language model-based evaluation sys-tem, which has shown success in other domains 36 – 38 .”
Evaluating Twitter’s algorithmic amplification of low-credibility content: an observational study
Corsi, G. (2024) · EPJ Data Science · doi:10.1140/epjds/s13688-024-00456-3 · Cited by 45
LLM4Vis: Explainable Visualization Recommendation using ChatGPT
Wang, L., Zhang, S., Wang, Y., Lim, E., & Wang, Y. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-industry.64 · Cited by 70
Can large language models help augment English psycholinguistic datasets?
Trott, S. (2024) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-024-02337-z · Cited by 58
Namvarpour, M. (., Pauwels, H., & Razi, A. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3757548 · Cited by 45
Automated literature research and review-generation method based on large language models
Wu, S., Ma, X., Luo, D., Li, L., Shi, X., Chang, X., Lin, X., Luo, R., Pei, C., Du, C., et al. (2025) · National Science Review · doi:10.1093/nsr/nwaf169 · Cited by 54
Codebook LLMs: Evaluating LLMs as Measurement Tools for Political Science Concepts
Halterman, A., & Keith, K. A. (2025) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1017/pan.2025.10017 · Cited by 44
Wang, J., & Wang, V. X. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5189069 · Cited by 43
Henkel, O., Hills, L., Boxer, A., Roberts, B., & Levonian, Z. (2024) · Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale · doi:10.1145/3657604.3664693 · Cited by 42
Speedy activists: How firm response time to sociopolitical events influences consumer behavior
Nam, J., Balakrishnan, M., Freitas, J. D., & Brooks, A. W. (2023) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1002/jcpy.1380 · Cited by 46
Mets, M., Karjus, A., Ibrus, I., & Schich, M. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0302380 · Cited by 49
Multi-Level Feedback Generation with Large Language Models for Empowering Novice Peer Counselors
Chaszczewicz, A., Shah, R., Louie, R., Arnow, B. A., Kraut, R. E., & Yang, D. (2024) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.227 · Cited by 42
Quinn, M., & Gutt, D. (2025) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2025.2487313 · Cited by 44
Ramaul, L., Ritala, P., Kostis, A., & Aaltonen, P. (2026) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.13246 · Cited by 41
Enhancing Postmarketing Surveillance of Medical Products With Large Language Models
Matheny, M. E., Yang, J., Smith, J., Walsh, C. G., Al-Garadi, M. A., Davis, S. E., Marsolo, K. A., Fabbri, D., Reeves, R. R., Johnson, K. B., et al. (2024) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.28276 · Cited by 42
LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods
Li, H., Dong, Q., Chen, J., Su, H., Zhou, Y., Ai, Q., Ye, Z., & Liu, Y. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.05579 · Cited by 40
Čegiň, J., Šimko, J., & Brusilovsky, P. L. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.117 · Cited by 48
Quality assurance and validity of AI-generated single best answer questions
Ahmed, A., Kerr, E., & O’Malley, A. (2025) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-025-06881-w · Cited by 40
Synthetic Replacements for Human Survey Data? The Perils of Large Language Models
Bisbee, J., Clinton, J. D., Dorff, C., Kenkel, B., & Larson, J. (2023) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/5ecfa · Cited by 213
Understanding Human-AI Workflows for Generating Personas
Shin, J., Hedderich, M. A., Rey, B. J., Lucero, A., & Oulasvirta, A. (2024) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3643834.3660729 · Cited by 58
Fine-Tuning Large Language Models to Improve Accuracy and Comprehensibility of Automated Code Review
Yu, Y., Rong, G., Shen, H., Zhang, H., Shao, D., Wang, M., Wei, Z., Xu, Y., & Wang, J. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3695993 · Cited by 47
LLMs as Workers in Human-Computational Algorithms? Replicating Crowdsourcing Pipelines with LLMs
Wu, T., Zhu, H., Albayrak, M., Axon, A., Bertsch, A., Deng, W., Ding, Z., Guo, B., Gururaja, S., Kuo, T.-S., et al. (2025) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3706599.3706690 · Cited by 59
Wang, R., & Demszky, D. (2023) · Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.bea-1.53 · Cited by 41
Revisiting Automated Topic Model Evaluation with Large Language Models
Stammbach, D., Zouhar, V., Hoyle, A., Sachan, M., & Ash, E. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.581 · Cited by 52
Exploring ChatGPT for next-generation information retrieval: Opportunities and challenges
Huang, Y., & Huang, J. X. (2024) · Web Intelligence · doi:10.3233/web-230363 · Cited by 45
DepressionEmo: A novel dataset for multilabel classification of depression emotions
Rahman, A. B. S., Ta, H. T., Najjar, L., Azadmanesh, A., & Gönül, A. S. (2024) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2024.08.013 · Cited by 41
Henkel, O., Hills, L., Roberts, B., & McGrane, J. A. (2024) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-024-00431-z · Cited by 45
Simulacrum of Stories: Examining Large Language Models as Qualitative Research Participants
Kapania, S., Agnew, W. S., Eslami, M., Heidari, H., & Fox, S. (2025) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713220 · Cited by 53
Organizational preparedness for the use of large language models in pathology informatics
Hart, S. N., Hoffman, N. G., Gershkovich, P., Christenson, C., McClintock, D. S., Miller, L. J., Jackups, R., Azimi, V., Spies, N. C., & Brodsky, V. (2023) · Journal of Pathology Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jpi.2023.100338 · Cited by 38
Large Language Models as Evaluators for Recommendation Explanations
Zhang, X., Li, Y., Wang, J., Sun, B., Ma, W., Sun, P., & Zhang, M. (2024) · ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys) · doi:10.1145/3640457.3688075 · Cited by 47
Towards Natural Language-Guided Drones: GeoText-1652 Benchmark with Spatial Relation Matching
Chu, M., Zheng, Z., Ji, W., Wang, T., & Chua, T. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-73247-8_13 · Cited by 46
Fg-T2M++: LLMs-Augmented Fine-Grained Text Driven Human Motion Generation
Wang, Y., Mu, L., Liu, J., Leng, Z., Li, F. W. B., Zhang, Z., & Liang, X. (2025) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1007/s11263-025-02392-9 · Cited by 44
Stance detection: a practical guide to classifying political beliefs in text
Burnham, M. (2024) · Political Science Research and Methods · doi:10.1017/psrm.2024.35 · Cited by 44
Distilling ChatGPT for Explainable Automated Student Answer Assessment
Li, J., Gui, L., Zhou, Y., West, D., Aloisi, C., & He, Y. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.399 · Cited by 43
If in a Crowdsourced Data Annotation Pipeline, a GPT-4
He, Z., Huang, C.-Y., Ding, C. C., Rohatgi, S., & Huang, T.-H. (2024) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642834 · Cited by 52
How developments in natural language processing help us in understanding human behaviour
Mihalcea, R. F., Biester, L., Boyd, R. L., Jin, Z., Pérez‐Rosas, V., Wilson, S. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2024) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-024-01938-0 · Cited by 37
Atreja, S., Ashkinaze, J., Li, L., Mendelsohn, J., & Hemphill, L. (2025) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v19i1.35807 · Cited by 56
A Comparative Study on Annotation Quality of Crowdsourcing and LLm Via Label Aggregation
Li, J. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp48485.2024.10447803 · Cited by 36
FAIR Enough: Develop and Assess a FAIR-Compliant Dataset for Large Language Model Training?
Raza, S., Ghuge, S., Ding, C., Dolatabadi, E., & Pandya, D. A. (2024) · Data Intelligence · doi:10.1162/dint_a_00255 · Cited by 39
Value FULCRA: Mapping Large Language Models to the Multidimensional Spectrum of Basic Human Value
Yao, J., Yi, X., Gong, Y., Wang, X., & Xie, X. (2024) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.486 · Cited by 59
The opportunities and challenges of adopting ChatGPT in medical research
Alsadhan, A. A., Al-Anezi, F., AlMohanna, A. M., Alnaim, N. M., Alzahrani, H. A., shinawi, R., AboAlsamh, H. M., Bakhshwain, A. M., Alenazy, M. F., Arif, W. M., et al. (2023) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2023.1259640 · Cited by 35
ChatGPT for Text Annotation? Mind the Hype!Preprint
Ollion, É., Shen, R., Macanovic, A., & Chatelain, A. (2023) · SocArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/x58kn · Cited by 44
In generative AI we trust: can chatbots effectively verify political information?
Kuznetsova, E., Makhortykh, M., Vziatysheva, V., Stolze, M., Baghumyan, A., & Urman, A. (2025) · Journal of Computational Social Science · doi:10.1007/s42001-024-00338-8 · Cited by 32
Li, J., Jia, Z., & Zheng, Z. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.334 · Cited by 40
Hutt, S. J., DePiro, A., Wang, J., Rhodes, S., Baker, R. S., Hieb, G., Sethuraman, S., Ocumpaugh, J. L., & Mills, C. (2024) · International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK) · doi:10.1145/3636555.3636850 · Cited by 32
Zacharis, A., Katos, V., & Patsakis, C. (2024) · International Journal of Information Security · doi:10.1007/s10207-024-00860-w · Cited by 35
The Pitfalls of Review Solicitation: Evidence from a Natural Experiment on TripAdvisor
Gao, B., Wang, J., Xiaojie, D., & Guo, Y. (2024) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2023.01006 · Cited by 34
Alomari, E. A. (2024) · Computer Modeling in Engineering & Sciences · doi:10.32604/cmes.2024.052256 · Cited by 37
Kholodna, N., Julka, S., Khodadadi, M., Gumus, M. N., & Granitzer, M. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-70381-2_25 · Cited by 40
An, W., Tian, F., Leng, S., Nie, J., Lin, H., Wang, Q., Chen, P., Zhang, X., & Lu, S. (2025) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr52734.2025.02784 · Cited by 77
Nostalgia in European Party Politics: A Text-Based Measurement Approach
Müller, S., & Proksch, S. (2023) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0007123423000571 · Cited by 31
How to succeed with an AI-first strategy?
Ruokonen, M., & Ritala, P. (2023) · Journal of Business Strategy · doi:10.1108/jbs-08-2023-0178 · Cited by 31
Yoo, K., Haenlein, M., & Hewett, K. (2025) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-025-01097-2 · Cited by 31
The cultural stereotype and cultural bias of ChatGPT
Yuan, H., Che, Z., Zhang, Y., Shao, L. H., Yuan, X., Huang, L., Hu, X., Peng, K., & Luo, S. (2025) · Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology · doi:10.1177/18344909251355673 · Cited by 31
Goal-Driven Explainable Clustering via Language Descriptions
Wang, Z., Shang, J., & Zhong, R. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.657 · Cited by 31
Can GPT-4 Support Analysis of Textual Data in Tasks Requiring Highly Specialized Domain Expertise?Preprint
Šavelka, J., Ashley, K. D., Gray, M., Westermann, H., & Xu, H. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.13906 · Cited by 44
Cao, Z., Li, M., & Pavlou, P. A. (2024) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/deci.12655 · Cited by 35
Pseudo-Labeling With Large Language Models for Multi-Label Emotion Classification of French Tweets
Malik, M. U., Bernard, S., Pauchet, A., Chatelain, C., Picot-Clémente, R., & Cortinovis, J. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3354705 · Cited by 29
Šuster, S., Baldwin, T., & Verspoor, K. M. (2024) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1749 · Cited by 31
Reducing Privacy Risks in Online Self-Disclosures with Language Models
Dou, Y., Krsek, I., Naous, T., Kabra, A., Das, S., Ritter, A., & Xu, W. H. (2024) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.741 · Cited by 29
Mathebula, M., Modupe, A., & Marivate, V. N. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3464374 · Cited by 32
Understanding the potential of urban parks to promote well-being
Dietz, L. W., Šćepanović, S., Zhou, K., Zanella, A. F., & Quercia, D. (2025) · Nature Cities · doi:10.1038/s44284-025-00345-4 · Cited by 33
Cardamone, N. C., Olfson, M., Schmutte, T. J., Ungar, L., Liu, T., Cullen, S. W., Williams, N. J., & Marcus, S. C. (2024) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/65454 · Cited by 34
Prototypical Reward Network for Data-Efficient RLHF
Zhang, J., Wang, X., Jin, Y., Chen, C., Zhang, X., & Liu, K. (2024) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.748 · Cited by 29
Conducting Qualitative Interviews with AI
Chopra, F., & Haaland, I. (2026) · CESifo · doi:10.65864/ch6grwpore · Cited by 38
Durably reducing conspiracy beliefs through dialogues with AI
Costello, T. H., Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2024) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/xcwdn · Cited by 28
Wu, Y., Zhang, J., Hu, N., Tang, L., Qi, G., Shao, J., Ren, J., & Song, W. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-5569-1_16 · Cited by 34
Qiu, Y., Mintenig, S. M., Barchiesi, M., & Koelmans, A. A. (2025) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2025.109341 · Cited by 28
Are chatbots reliable text annotators? Sometimes
Kristensen‐McLachlan, R. D., Canavan, M., Kardos, M., Jacobsen, M., & Aarøe, L. (2025) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf069 · Cited by 28
Evaluation of large language models within GenAI in qualitative research
Mehta, S. D., Paul, S., Awiti, E., Young, S., Zulaika, G., Otieno, F., Phillips‐Howard, P. A., Mason, L., & Bhaumik, R. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-18969-w · Cited by 28
Latif, S., Usama, M., Malik, M. I., & Schuller, B. W. (2025) · IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine · doi:10.1109/mci.2024.3504833 · Cited by 42
Codepori: Large-Scale System for Autonomous Software Development Using Multi-Agent Technology
Rasheed, Z., Malik, S., Kemell, K.-K., Muhammad, W., Saari, M., Systä, K., & Abrahamsson, P. (2024) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4979510 · Cited by 27
Zhang, C., Lei, X., Xia, Y., & Sun, L. (2024) · Developments in the Built Environment · doi:10.1016/j.dibe.2024.100549 · Cited by 29
Liu, Y., Sheng, F., & Liu, R. (2025) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-025-05656-4 · Cited by 32
Generative AI and the augmentation of information practices in knowledge work
Jarrahi, M. H., Li, L., Robinson, A. P., & Meng, S. (2025) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2025.2551570 · Cited by 33
Cross-platform social dynamics: an analysis of ChatGPT and COVID-19 vaccine conversations
Alipour, S., Galeazzi, A., Sangiorgio, E., Avalle, M., Bojić, L., Cinelli, M., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-53124-x · Cited by 33
Conducting Qualitative Interviews with AIPreprint
Chopra, F., & Haaland, I. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4572954 · Cited by 34
Wysocka, M., Wysocki, O., Delmas, M., Mutel, V., & Freitas, A. (2024) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2024.104724 · Cited by 33
Balog, K., Metzler, D., & Qin, Z. (2025) · International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) · doi:10.1145/3726302.3730348 · Cited by 41
Keeping Humans in the Loop: Human-Centered Automated Annotation with Generative AI
Ladapo, O. O., Jooda, D., Dosunmu, A. A., & Abolaji, T. O. (2024) · International Journal of Multidisciplinary Futuristic Development · doi:10.54660/ijmfd.2024.5.1.81-95 · Cited by 27
Ziakkas, D., & Pechlivanis, K. (2023) · Decision Analytics Journal · doi:10.1016/j.dajour.2023.100358 · Cited by 26
Pookpanich, P., & Siriborvornratanakul, T. (2024) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-023-01183-9 · Cited by 26
Hou, R., Fütterer, T., Bühler, B., Bozkir, E., Gerjets, P. H., Trautwein, U., & Kasneci, E. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-64302-6_5 · Cited by 29
A systematic review of urban road traffic CO 2 emission models
Yu, C., Yang, X., Mu, J., & Liu, S. (2025) · Carbon Footprints · doi:10.20517/cf.2025.12 · Cited by 25
Haslberger, M., Gingrich, J. R., & Bhatia, J. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4594466 · Cited by 30
Content moderation by LLM: from accuracy to legitimacy
Huang, T. (2025) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-025-11328-1 · Cited by 24
Framing Social Movements on Social Media
Mendelsohn, J., Vijan, M., Card, D., & Budak, C. (2024) · Journal of Quantitative Description Digital Media · doi:10.51685/jqd.2024.icwsm.9 · Cited by 28
Stuhler, O., Ton, C. D., & Ollion, É. (2025) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/00491241251336794 · Cited by 29
Joko, H., Chatterjee, S., Ramsay, A., de Vries, A. P., Dalton, J., & Hasibi, F. (2024) · International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) · doi:10.1145/3626772.3657815 · Cited by 33
Use of large language models as a scalable approach to understanding public health discourse
Espinosa, L., & Salathé, M. (2024) · PLOS Digital Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000631 · Cited by 30
Data Authenticity, Consent, and Provenance for AI Are All Broken: What Will It Take to Fix Them?
Longpre, S., Mahari, R., Obeng-Marnu, N., Brannon, W., South, T., Kabbara, J., & Pentland, A. (2024) · doi:10.21428/e4baedd9.a650f77d · Cited by 28
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
