ChatGPT-4 Outperforms Experts and Crowd Workers in Annotating Political Twitter Messages with Zero-Shot Learning
AI-generated Key Points
- The paper explores the accuracy, reliability, and bias of the Large Language Model (LLM) ChatGPT-4 in classifying political affiliation on Twitter.
- The study compares ChatGPT-4 to manual annotation by expert classifiers and crowd workers.
- ChatGPT-4 achieves higher accuracy, higher reliability, and equal or lower bias than human classifiers.
- LLMs will have a substantial impact on using textual data in social sciences by enabling interpretive research at scale.
- Traditional forms of interpretive textual research tend to miss patterns of language use that are not directly observable because they are realized across thousands or millions of words of running text and not categorical but probabilistic.
Authors: Petter Törnberg
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.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
Welcome to our AI assistant! Here are some important things to keep in mind:
- The assistant will only answer questions related to this specific paper.
- Please note that this is not a bot for casual chatting.
- If you want the answer in a language other than the language you chose for navigating the website, simply add "TRANSLATE IN LANGUAGE L" at the end of your query (replace "LANGUAGE L" with the language of your choice).
- For example, you could ask "Can you extract the most important aspect of the paper? TRANSLATE IN SPANISH".
- If you want to keep the history of your questions/answers you should create an account.
Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting
Why do we need votes?
Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through atree representation
Look for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.