mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Tell Me What You Know About Sexism: Expert-LLM Interaction Strategies and Co-Created Definitions for Zero-Shot Sexism Detection

arXiv 2504.15392 ↗First posted 21 Apr 2025cs.CL cs.CYcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

This paper investigates hybrid intelligence and collaboration between researchers of sexism and Large Language Models (LLMs), with a four-component pipeline. First, nine sexism researchers answer questions about their knowledge of sexism and of LLMs. They then participate in two interactive experiments involving an LLM (GPT3.5). The first experiment has experts assessing the model's knowledge about sexism and suitability for use in research. The second experiment tasks them with creating three different definitions of sexism: an expert-written definition, an LLM-written one, and a co-created definition. Lastly, zero-shot classification experiments use the three definitions from each expert in a prompt template for sexism detection, evaluating GPT4o on 2.500 texts sampled from five sexism benchmarks. We then analyze the resulting 67.500 classification decisions. The LLM interactions lead to longer and more complex definitions of sexism. Expert-written definitions on average perform poorly compared to LLM-generated definitions. However, some experts do improve classification performance with their co-created definitions of sexism, also experts who are inexperienced in using LLMs.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 55 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Apr 2025.

Builds on

22 of 55 references.

References · 22

  1. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
  2. 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,170
  3. 2019Measurement and Fairnesscited by 308
  4. 2020HateCheck: Functional Tests for Hate Speech Detection Modelscited by 216
  5. 2022On Second Thought, Let's Not Think Step by Step! Bias and Toxicity in Zero-Shot Reasoningcited by 194
  6. 2024The Effect of Sampling Temperature on Problem Solving in Large Language Modelscited by 170
  7. 2023Co-Writing with Opinionated Language Models Affects Users' Viewscited by 148
  8. 2023Sensitivity, Performance, Robustness: Deconstructing the Effect of Sociodemographic Promptingcited by 81
  9. 2023Opening up ChatGPT: Tracking openness, transparency, and accountability in instruction-tuned text generatorscited by 56
  10. 2021Hybrid Intelligencecited by 55
  11. 2023Testing the Reliability of ChatGPT for Text Annotation and Classification: A Cautionary Remarkcited by 54
  12. 2020"Call me sexist, but...": Revisiting Sexism Detection Using Psychological Scales and Adversarial Samplescited by 48
10 more
  1. 2023Stereotypes and Smut: The (Mis)representation of Non-cisgender Identities by Text-to-Image Modelscited by 27
  2. 2023People Make Better Edits: Measuring the Efficacy of LLM-Generated Counterfactually Augmented Data for Harmful Language Detectioncited by 25
  3. 2023What about em? How Commercial Machine Translation Fails to Handle (Neo-)Pronounscited by 19
  4. 2022Hate Speech Criteria: A Modular Approach to Task-Specific Hate Speech Definitionscited by 18
  5. 2024Prompt Design Matters for Computational Social Science Tasks but in Unpredictable Wayscited by 16
  6. 2023Evaluation is all you need. Prompting Generative Large Language Models for Annotation Tasks in the Social Sciences. A Primer using Open Modelscited by 12
  7. 2020What Makes a Good and Useful Summary? Incorporating Users in Automatic Summarization Researchcited by 8
  8. 2024SOCIALITE-LLAMA: An Instruction-Tuned Model for Social Scientific Taskscited by 7
  9. 2024DefVerify: Do Hate Speech Models Reflect Their Dataset's Definition?cited by 7
  10. 2024Untangling Hate Speech Definitions: A Semantic Componential Analysis Across Cultures and Domainscited by 6

Built on by

Not cited yet.