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 201–300 of 1,025
PDFChatAnnotator: A Human-LLM Collaborative Multi-Modal Data Annotation Tool for PDF-Format Catalogs
Tang, Y., Chang, C.-M., & Yang, X. (2024) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/3640543.3645174 · Cited by 29
Collecting Qualitative Data at Scale with Large Language Models: A Case Study
Cuevas, A., Scurrell, J. V., Brown, E. M., Entenmann, J., & Daepp, M. I. G. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3710947 · Cited by 23
Leveraging large language models for thematic analysis: a case study in the charity sector
Wen, C., Clough, P., Paton, R., & Middleton, R. (2025) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-025-02487-4 · Cited by 23
Understanding Economic Behavior Using Open-Ended Survey Data
Haaland, I., Roth, C., Stantcheva, S., & Wohlfart, J. (2025) · Journal of Economic Literature · doi:10.1257/jel.20251780 · Cited by 26
ChatGPT vs. Human Annotators: A Comprehensive Analysis of ChatGPT for Text Annotation
Aldeen, M. S., Luo, J., Lian, A., Zheng, V., Hong, A., Yetukuri, P., & Cheng, L. (2023) · International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications · doi:10.1109/icmla58977.2023.00089 · Cited by 28
Mardiansyah, K., & Surya, W. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4005702/v1 · Cited by 23
Using Large Language Models for Qualitative Analysis can Introduce Serious Bias
Ashwin, J., Chhabra, A., & Rao, V. (2026) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/00491241251338246 · Cited by 22
Automated Discourse Analysis via Generative Artificial Intelligence
Garg, R., Han, J., Cheng, Y., Fang, Z., & Swiecki, Z. (2024) · International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK) · doi:10.1145/3636555.3636879 · Cited by 24
Meaningful Work in the Digital Age- A Comprehensive Review and Framework
Arora, N., & Garg, N. (2024) · Human Resource Development International · doi:10.1080/13678868.2024.2336866 · Cited by 24
Coding latent concepts: a human and LLM-coordinated content analysis procedure
Jia, F., Ai, Y., Liu, X., Deng, Y., & Li, Y. (2024) · Communication Research Reports · doi:10.1080/08824096.2024.2410263 · Cited by 25
Can GPT-4 learn to analyse moves in research article abstracts?
Yu, D., Bondi, M., & Hyland, K. (2024) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amae071 · Cited by 29
Cheng, X., Zeng, A., Yang, B., Liu, Y., & Zhang, X. (2025) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2025.101497 · Cited by 22
Liu, S., Liu, S., Sha, L., Zeng, Z., Gašević, D., & Liu, Z. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2025.3570775 · Cited by 24
Lessons from complex systems science for AI governance
Kolt, N., Shur‐Ofry, M., & Reuven Cohen, C. (2025) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2025.101341 · Cited by 34
Exploring the Human-LLM Synergy in Advancing Theory-driven Qualitative Analysis
Meng, H., Yang, Y., Fu, W., Lee, J., Li, Y., & Lee, Y. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3778354 · Cited by 33
Contrastive Learning of Sentence Embeddings from Scratch
Zhang, J., Lan, Z., & He, J. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.238 · Cited by 26
Large Language Models and the Wisdom of Small Crowds
Trott, S. (2024) · Open Mind · doi:10.1162/opmi_a_00144 · Cited by 29
AFaCTA: Assisting the Annotation of Factual Claim Detection with Reliable LLM Annotators
Ni, J., Shi, M., Stammbach, D., Sachan, M., Ash, E., & Leippold, M. (2024) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.104 · Cited by 34
Lin, A., Zhu, L., Mou, W., Yuan, Z., Cheng, Q., Jiang, A., & Luo, P. (2024) · International Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1097/js9.0000000000001583 · Cited by 22
Examining Chinese EFL learners’ online self-regulated learning: A mixed-methods approach
Zhang, W., Liu, B., & Wilson, A. (2024) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2024.103277 · Cited by 21
Gunes, E., & Florczak, C. (2025) · Journal of Computational Social Science · doi:10.1007/s42001-025-00362-2 · Cited by 26
Unraveling ChatGPT: A Critical Analysis of AI-Generated Goal-Oriented Dialogues and Annotations
Labruna, T., Brenna, S., Zaninello, A., & Magnini, B. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-47546-7_11 · Cited by 26
Cox, S. R., Abdul, A., & Ooi, W. T. (2023) · International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction (HAI) · doi:10.1145/3623809.3623931 · Cited by 23
Are Large Language Models Reliable Argument Quality Annotators?
Mirzakhmedova, N., Gohsen, M., Chang, C. H., & Stein, B. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-63536-6_8 · Cited by 22
Enhancing Text Classification through LLM-Driven Active Learning and Human Annotation
Rouzegar, H., & Makrehchi, M. (2024) · Linguistic Annotation Workshop · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.law-1.10 · Cited by 35
Xu, X., & Sankar, R. (2025) · Information · doi:10.3390/info16100894 · Cited by 20
Human-interpretable clustering of short text using large language models
Miller, J. K., & Alexander, T. J. (2025) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.241692 · Cited by 20
Language Models are Few-Shot Graders
Zhao, C., Silva, M. O., & Poulsen, S. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-98459-4_1 · Cited by 23
Farmers’ Voices in European Protests: Diverse Complaints, Emotional Tones, and Policy Responses
Läpple, D., Thoyer, S., den Broeck, G. V., Lécole, P., Sok, J., & de Mey, Y. (2025) · Food Policy · doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2025.102999 · Cited by 20
ChatGPT vs. Crowdsourcing vs. Experts: Annotating Open-Domain Conversations with Speech Functions
Ostyakova, L., Smilga, V., Petukhova, K., Molchanova, M., & Kornev, D. (2023) · Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.sigdial-1.23 · Cited by 22
Learning Interpretable Style Embeddings via Prompting LLMs
Patel, A., Rao, D., Kothary, A., McKeown, K. R., & Callison-Burch, C. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.1020 · Cited by 29
An empirical study of challenges in machine learning asset management
Zhao, Z., Chen, Y., Bangash, A. A., Adams, B., & Hassan, A. E. (2024) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-024-10474-4 · Cited by 20
Zhang, C., D’Haro, L. F., Chen, Y., Zhang, M., & Li, H. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i17.29923 · Cited by 31
Matter, D., Schirmer, M., Grinberg, N., & Pfeffer, J. (2024) · Frontiers in Social Psychology · doi:10.3389/frsps.2024.1383152 · Cited by 20
Mm-soc: Benchmarking multimodal large language models in social media platforms
Jin, Y., Choi, M., Verma, G., Wang, J., & Kumar, S. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024 · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.370 · Cited by 20
Chen, N., Liu, J., Dong, X., Liu, Q., Sakai, T., & Wu, X.-M. (2024) · Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval in the Asia Pacific Region (SIGIR-AP) · doi:10.1145/3673791.3698420 · Cited by 20
ChatGPT in the public eye: Ethical principles and generative concerns in social media discussions
Cohen, M., Khavkin, M., Davidow, D. M., & Toch, E. (2024) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448241279034 · Cited by 23
Validating the use of large language models for psychological text classification
Bunt, H. L., Goddard, A., Reader, T. W., & Gillespie, A. (2025) · Frontiers in Social Psychology · doi:10.3389/frsps.2025.1460277 · Cited by 21
Balancing Large Language Model Alignment and Algorithmic Fidelity in Social Science Research
Lyman, A., Hepner, B., Argyle, L. P., Busby, E. C., Gubler, J. R., & Wingate, D. (2025) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/00491241251342008 · Cited by 22
Liu, A., & Min, S. (2025) · AERA Open · doi:10.1177/23328584251374595 · Cited by 19
LLMs outperform outsourced human coders on complex textual analysis
Bermejo, V. J., Gago, A., Gálvez, R. H., & Harari, N. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-23798-y · Cited by 27
The Russia–Ukraine War in Chinese Social Media: LLM Analysis Yields a Bias Toward Neutrality
Rogers, R., & Zhang, X. (2024) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051241254379 · Cited by 22
Stochastic lies: How LLM-powered chatbots deal with Russian disinformation about the war in Ukraine
Makhortykh, M., Sydorova, M., Baghumyan, A., Vziatysheva, V., & Kuznetsova, E. (2024) · Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review · doi:10.37016/mr-2020-154 · Cited by 19
Choi, E. C., & Ferrara, E. (2024) · Companion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024 · doi:10.1145/3589335.3651910 · Cited by 18
Gao, Q., & Feng, D. W. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0313932 · Cited by 18
An assessment framework of higher-order thinking skills based on fine-tuned large language models
Xiao, X., Li, Y., He, X., Fang, J., Yan, Z., & Xie, C. (2025) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2025.126531 · Cited by 22
Wang, M., Yang, Y., & Zhong, P. (2025) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.102855 · Cited by 18
Leveraging Multi-Model Linguistic Fusion for Enhanced AI Text Generation Evasion
Khan, A. A., & Rajagopalan, S. (2025) · International Generative AI and Computational Language Modelling Conference (GACLM) · doi:10.1109/gaclm67198.2025.11231821 · Cited by 18
Hacking by the prompt: Innovative ways to utilize ChatGPT for evaluators
Ferretti, S. (2023) · New Directions for Evaluation · doi:10.1002/ev.20557 · Cited by 20
Evolving linguistic divergence on polarizing social media
Karjus, A., & Cuskley, C. F. (2024) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-024-02922-9 · Cited by 18
Utilizing Artificial Intelligence for Text Classification in Communication Sciences
Demirel, S., Bulur, N., & Çakıcı, Z. (2024) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-1830-0.ch013 · Cited by 18
PeaTMOSS: A Dataset and Initial Analysis of Pre-Trained Models in Open-Source Software
Jiang, W., Yasmin, J., Jones, J., Synovic, N. M., Kuo, J., Bielanski, N., Tian, Y., Thiruvathukal, G. K., & Davis, J. C. (2024) · International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) · doi:10.1145/3643991.3644907 · Cited by 31
Bridging Search and Recommendation in Generative Retrieval: Does One Task Help the Other?
Penha, G., Vardasbi, A., Palumbo, E., Nadai, M. D., & Bouchard, H. (2024) · ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys) · doi:10.1145/3640457.3688123 · Cited by 18
Predictable artificial intelligence
Zhou, L., Casares, P. A. M., Martínez‐Plumed, F., Burden, J., Burnell, R., Cheke, L. G., Ferri, C. S., Marcoci, A., Mehrbakhsh, B., Moros-Daval, Y., et al. (2026) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2026.104491 · Cited by 35
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. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.02179 · Cited by 18
Self-citationLaboratory-Scale AI: Open-Weight Models are Competitive with ChatGPT Even in Low-Resource Settings
Wolfe, R., Slaughter, I., Han, B., Wen, B., Yang, Y., Rosenblatt, L., Herman, B., Brown, E., Qu, Z., Weber, N., et al. (2024) · The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3630106.3658966 · Cited by 24
Eisfeldt, A. L., Schubert, G., Zhang, M. B., & Taska, B. (2023) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4436627 · Cited by 17
Credit scoring model for fintech lending: An integration of large language models and FocalPoly loss
Xia, Y., Han, Z., Li, Y., & He, L. (2024) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2024.07.005 · Cited by 19
Farjam, M., Meyer, H., & Lohkamp, M. (2025) · Social Science Computer Review · doi:10.1177/08944393251349541 · Cited by 26
Context-aware code summary generation
Su, C., Bansal, A., Huang, Y., Li, T. J.-J., & McMillan, C. (2025) · Journal of Systems and Software · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2025.112580 · Cited by 17
Navigating the Risks of Using Large Language Models for Text Annotation in Social Science Research
Lin, H., & Zhang, Y. (2025) · Social Science Computer Review · doi:10.1177/08944393251366243 · Cited by 22
Zhang, P., Li, Y., Wei, Z., & Hui, P. (2025) · Environmental Impact Assessment Review · doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2025.108227 · Cited by 18
Macanovic, A., & Przepiorka, W. (2024) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-024-02381-9 · Cited by 20
Discrete Prompt Compression With Reinforcement Learning
Jung, H., & Kim, K.-J. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3403426 · Cited by 29
Haupt, M. R., Yang, L., Purnat, T. D., & Mackey, T. K. (2024) · JMIR Infodemiology · doi:10.2196/60678 · Cited by 18
Synthetically generated text for supervised text analysis
Halterman, A. (2025) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1017/pan.2024.31 · Cited by 22
UMBRELA: UMbrela is the (Open-Source Reproduction of the) Bing RELevance Assessor
Upadhyay, S., Pradeep, R., Thakur, N., Craswell, N., & Lin, J. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.06519 · Cited by 16
“The emergence of large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 [17] and Gemini [20] has presented a distinctive opportunity to automate the intricate task of data annotation [1, 3, 12, 13, 15, 19, 22, 23].”
MethodIBSEN: Director-Actor Agent Collaboration for Controllable and Interactive Drama Script Generation
Han, S., Chen, L., Lin, L.-M., Xu, Z., & Yu, K. (2024) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.88 · Cited by 16
Yu, D. (2024) · English for Specific Purposes · doi:10.1016/j.esp.2024.11.003 · Cited by 16
Quality aspects of annotated data
Beck, J. (2023) · AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv · doi:10.1007/s11943-023-00332-y · Cited by 20
FACT-GPT: Fact-Checking Augmentation via Claim Matching with LLMs
Choi, E. C., & Ferrara, E. (2024) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3589335.3651504 · Cited by 16
Explore Spurious Correlations at the Concept Level in Language Models for Text Classification
Zhou, Y., Xu, P., Liu, X., An, B., Ai, W., & Huang, F. (2024) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.28 · Cited by 41
Constantinides, M., Bogucka, E., Šćepanović, S., & Quercia, D. (2024) · Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact. · doi:10.1145/3676507 · Cited by 21
Beyond time delays: how web scraping distorts measures of online news consumption
Ulloa, R., Mangold, F., Schmidt, F., Gilsbach, J. M., & Stier, S. (2025) · Communication Methods and Measures · doi:10.1080/19312458.2025.2482538 · Cited by 16
Examining the Expanding Role of Synthetic Data Throughout the AI Development Pipeline
Kapania, S., Ballard, S. A., Kessler, A., & Vaughan, J. W. (2025) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3715275.3732005 · Cited by 19
Exploration of applications with ChatGPT for green supply chain management
Zhou, L., Shi, X., Wang, Z., Ma, C., & Gao, L. (2025) · Annals of Operations Research · doi:10.1007/s10479-025-06713-6 · Cited by 16
Rauchfleisch, A., Vogler, D., & de Seta, G. (2025) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051251350975 · Cited by 15
Chat-based Person Retrieval via Dialogue-Refined Cross-Modal Alignment
Bai, Y., Ji, Y., Cao, M., Wang, J., & Ye, M. (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/cvpr52734.2025.00374 · Cited by 20
A step-by-step method for cultural annotation by LLMs
Dubourg, E., Thouzeau, V., & Baumard, N. (2024) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2024.1365508 · Cited by 18
Automatic user story generation: a comprehensive systematic literature review
dos Santos, C. A., Bouchard, K., & Napoleão, B. M. (2024) · International Journal of Data Science and Analytics · doi:10.1007/s41060-024-00567-0 · Cited by 17
Senator, F., Lakhfif, A., Zenbout, I., Boutouta, H., & Mediani, C. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3525493 · Cited by 16
Goodbye human annotators? Content analysis of social policy debates using ChatGPT
Gielens, E., Sowula, J., & Leifeld, P. (2025) · Journal of Social Policy · doi:10.1017/s0047279424000382 · Cited by 18
Automatic label curation from large-scale text corpus
Avasthi, S., & Chauhan, R. (2024) · Engineering Research Express · doi:10.1088/2631-8695/ad299e · Cited by 14
Under the (neighbor)hood: Hyperlocal Surveillance on Nextdoor
Choksi, M. Z., Quéré, M. A. L., Lloyd, T., Tao, R., Grimmelmann, J., & Naaman, M. (2024) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3641967 · Cited by 14
SAMBA: A reference framework for Human-in-the-Loop in adaptive Smart Manufacturing
Bianchini, F., Calamo, M., Luzi, F. D., Macrì, M., Marinacci, M., Mathew, J. G., Monti, F., Rossi, J., Leotta, F., & Mecella, M. (2025) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2025.01.286 · Cited by 14
Distilling Wisdom: A Review on Optimizing Learning From Massive Language Models
Zhang, D., Listiyani, D., Singh, P., & Mohanty, M. (2025) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2025.3554586 · Cited by 18
Media coverage of climate activist groups in Germany
Dablander, F., Wimmer, S., & Haslbeck, J. M. B. (2025) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-025-03959-8 · Cited by 17
The Impostor is Among Us: Can Large Language Models Capture the Complexity of Human Personas?
Lazik, C. K., Katins, C., Kauter, C., Jakob, J., Jay, C., Grunske, L., & Kosch, T. (2025) · Mensch und Computer (MuC) · doi:10.1145/3743049.3743057 · Cited by 14
SIGHT: A Large Annotated Dataset on Student Insights Gathered from Higher Education Transcripts
Wang, R., Wirawarn, P., Goodman, N. D., & Demszky, D. (2023) · Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.bea-1.27 · Cited by 16
Modeling Legal Reasoning: LM Annotation at the Edge of Human Agreement
Thalken, R., Stiglitz, E., Mimno, D., & Wilkens, M. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.575 · Cited by 13
Jang, J., Boo, M., & Kim, H. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.838 · Cited by 13
An Evaluation of Large Language Models for Supplementing a Food Extrusion Dataset
Bölücü, N., Pennells, J., Yang, H.-C., Rybinski, M., & Wan, S. (2025) · Foods · doi:10.3390/foods14081355 · Cited by 13
Arti-‘fickle’ intelligence: using LLMs as a tool for inference in the political and social sciences
Argyle, L. P., Busby, E. C., Gubler, J. R., Hepner, B., Lyman, A., & Wingate, D. (2025) · Nature Computational Science · doi:10.1038/s43588-025-00843-4 · Cited by 14
Zero-Shot Domain-Sensitive Speech Recognition with Prompt-Conditioning Fine-Tuning
Liao, F.-T., Chan, Y.-C., Chen, Y., Hsu, C.-J., & Shiu, D.-S. (2023) · IEEE Workshop on Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding (ASRU) · doi:10.1109/asru57964.2023.10389617 · Cited by 16
APT-Pipe: A Prompt-Tuning Tool for Social Data Annotation using ChatGPT
Zhu, Y., Yin, Z., Gareth Tyson, A., Haq, E.-U., Lee, L., & Hui, P. (2024) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3589334.3645642 · Cited by 13
Enhancing Human Annotation: Leveraging Large Language Models and Efficient Batch Processing
Zendel, O., Culpepper, J. S., Scholer, F., & Thomas, P. (2024) · Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3627508.3638322 · Cited by 17
Human vs ChatGPT: Effect of Data Annotation in Interpretable Crisis-Related Microblog Classification
Nguyen, T. H., & Rudra, K. (2024) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3589334.3648141 · Cited by 14
Lykousas, N., & Patsakis, C. (2024) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2024.103974 · Cited by 13
Hutt, S. J., & Hieb, G. (2024) · ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S) · doi:10.1145/3657604.3664699 · Cited by 13
People judge others more harshly after talking to bots
Tey, K. S., Mazar, A., Tomaino, G., Duckworth, A. L., & Ungar, L. (2024) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae397 · Cited by 16
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
