CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 152Computational and Text Analysis MethodsSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningEthics and Social Impacts of AI

ChatGPT-4 Outperforms Experts and Crowd Workers in Annotating Political Twitter Messages with Zero-Shot Learning

Open access
Törnberg, Petter·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2304.06588arXiv 2304.06588
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper assesses the accuracy, reliability and bias of the Large Language Model (LLM) ChatGPT-4 on the text analysis task of classifying the political affiliation of a Twitter poster based on the content of a tweet. The LLM is compared to manual annotation by both expert classifiers and crowd workers, generally considered the gold standard for such tasks. We use Twitter messages from United States politicians during the 2020 election, providing a ground truth against which to measure accuracy. The paper finds that ChatGPT-4 has achieves higher accuracy, higher reliability, and equal or lower bias than the human classifiers. The LLM is able to correctly annotate messages that require reasoning on the basis of contextual knowledge, and inferences around the author's intentions - traditionally seen as uniquely human abilities. These findings suggest that LLM will have substantial impact on the use of textual data in the social sciences, by enabling interpretive research at a scale.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2304.06588

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Recent advancements in large language models mitigate many limitations of human coders by leveraging computational efficiency, consistency, and scalability.

    “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 [36]

Cites

  • Realism and Social Science

    Sayer, A. (2000) · doi:10.4135/9781446218730 · Cited by 2,259 · cited 1× · see citing works

    “While interpretation lies at the very heart of the social sciences (1, 28), it has thus been seen as almost intrinsically qualitative; “meaning has to be understood, it cannot be measured or counted, and hence there is always an interpretive or hermeneutic element in social science” (2, 17).”

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Törnberg, P.
Affiliations
University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Törnberg, Petter
ORCID
Törnberg, Petter
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2304.06588
arXiv
2304.06588
OpenAlex
W4365601444
Cited by
152
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
ChatGPT-4, large language models, Twitter, zero-shot learning, crowd workers, annotation accuracy, annotation reliability, annotation bias, 2020 US presidential election, political discourse

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.

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