REVIEW 3 cited by
Measurement in the Age of LLMs: An Application to Ideological Scaling
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Much of social science is centered around terms like ``ideology'' or ``power'', which generally elude precise definition, and whose contextual meanings are trapped in surrounding language. This paper explores the use of large language models (LLMs) to flexibly navigate the conceptual clutter inherent to social scientific measurement tasks. We rely on LLMs' remarkable linguistic fluency to elicit ideological scales of both legislators and text, which accord closely to established methods and our own judgement. A key aspect of our approach is that we elicit such scores directly, instructing the LLM to furnish numeric scores itself. This approach affords a great deal of flexibility, which we showcase through a variety of different case studies. Our results suggest that LLMs can be used to characterize highly subtle and diffuse manifestations of political ideology in text.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Validating LLMs in social science: Epistemic threats and emerging norms
In 50 LLM measurement tasks from 27 top-journal papers, LLM outputs are often central to claims yet validation is limited, mostly convergent, and frequently incomplete.
-
Large Language Models Can Be a Viable Substitute for Expert Political Surveys When a Shock Disrupts Traditional Measurement Approaches
LLM-based pairwise comparisons can recover pre-shock perceptions of federal agencies, including a new knowledge-institution measure that predicts DOGE layoffs.
-
AI Propaganda factories with language models
Small language models sustain political personas and become more ideologically extreme when replying to counter-arguments, according to a language-model judge.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.