# Advancing Annotation of Stance in Social Media Posts: A Comparative Analysis of Large Language Models and Crowd Sourcing

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07483 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07483/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 13 of its 29 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 11 Jun 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09288/) (2023)
- [Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.13586/) (2021)
- [Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.09690/) (2021)
- [ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.15056/) (2023)
- [The RefinedWeb Dataset for Falcon LLM: Outperforming Curated Corpora with Web Data, and Web Data Only](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.01116/) (2023)
- [Zephyr: Direct Distillation of LM Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.16944/) (2023)
- [Faith and Fate: Limits of Transformers on Compositionality](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18654/) (2023)
- [Zero-Shot Stance Detection: A Dataset and Model using Generalized Topic Representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.03640/) (2020)
- [Stance Detection on Social Media: State of the Art and Trends](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.03644/) (2020)
- [Can ChatGPT Reproduce Human-Generated Labels? A Study of Social Computing Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.10145/) (2023)
- [Unsupervised User Stance Detection on Twitter](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.02000/) (2019)
- [Stance Detection with BERT Embeddings for Credibility Analysis of Information on Social Media](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.10272/) (2021)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Topic-FlipRAG: Topic-Orientated Adversarial Opinion Manipulation Attacks to Retrieval-Augmented Generation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.01386/) (2025)
- [Unmasking Conversational Bias in AI Multiagent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.14844/) (2025)
- [Can Third-parties Read Our Emotions?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.18673/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

In the rapidly evolving landscape of Natural Language Processing (NLP), the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) for automated text annotation in social media posts has garnered significant interest. Despite the impressive innovations in developing LLMs like ChatGPT, their efficacy, and accuracy as annotation tools are not well understood. In this paper, we analyze the performance of eight open-source and proprietary LLMs for annotating the stance expressed in social media posts, benchmarking their performance against human annotators' (i.e., crowd-sourced) judgments. Additionally, we investigate the conditions under which LLMs are likely to disagree with human judgment. A significant finding of our study is that the explicitness of text expressing a stance plays a critical role in how faithfully LLMs' stance judgments match humans'. We argue that LLMs perform well when human annotators do, and when LLMs fail, it often corresponds to situations in which human annotators struggle to reach an agreement. We conclude with recommendations for a comprehensive approach that combines the precision of human expertise with the scalability of LLM predictions. This study highlights the importance of improving the accuracy and comprehensiveness of automated stance detection, aiming to advance these technologies for more efficient and unbiased analysis of social media.