mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Evaluation is all you need. Prompting Generative Large Language Models for Annotation Tasks in the Social Sciences. A Primer using Open Models

arXiv 2401.00284 ↗First posted 30 Dec 2023cs.CLcited by 12

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

This paper explores the use of open generative Large Language Models (LLMs) for annotation tasks in the social sciences. The study highlights the challenges associated with proprietary models, such as limited reproducibility and privacy concerns, and advocates for the adoption of open (source) models that can be operated on independent devices. Two examples of annotation tasks, sentiment analysis in tweets and identification of leisure activities in childhood aspirational essays are provided. The study evaluates the performance of different prompting strategies and models (neural-chat-7b-v3-2, Starling-LM-7B-alpha, openchat_3.5, zephyr-7b-alpha and zephyr-7b-beta). The results indicate the need for careful validation and tailored prompt engineering. The study highlights the advantages of open models for data privacy and reproducibility.

Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Dec 2023.

Builds on

17 of 28 references.

References · 17

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  2. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
  3. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,708
  4. 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,374
  5. 2023ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Taskscited by 870
  6. 2023A Prompt Pattern Catalog to Enhance Prompt Engineering with ChatGPTcited by 619
  7. 2023Can Large Language Models Transform Computational Social Science?cited by 250
  8. 2019SemEval-2017 Task 4: Sentiment Analysis in Twittercited by 210
  9. 2023Power Hungry Processing: Watts Driving the Cost of AI Deployment?cited by 191
  10. 2023AnnoLLM: Making Large Language Models to Be Better Crowdsourced Annotatorscited by 172
  11. 2023Is ChatGPT better than Human Annotators? Potential and Limitations of ChatGPT in Explaining Implicit Hate Speechcited by 166
  12. 2023Can ChatGPT Understand Too? A Comparative Study on ChatGPT and Fine-tuned BERTcited by 155
5 more
  1. 2023ChatGPT-4 Outperforms Experts and Crowd Workers in Annotating Political Twitter Messages with Zero-Shot Learningcited by 100
  2. 2023Can ChatGPT Reproduce Human-Generated Labels? A Study of Social Computing Taskscited by 89
  3. 2023Automated Annotation with Generative AI Requires Validationcited by 76
  4. 2023Testing the Reliability of ChatGPT for Text Annotation and Classification: A Cautionary Remarkcited by 54
  5. 2023Modeling Legal Reasoning: LM Annotation at the Edge of Human Agreementcited by 17

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 7; 2025: 4; 2026: 1.

12 papers.