# Inductive Claims Extraction at Scale

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.05275 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.05275/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 18 of its 53 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 4 Oct 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 18 of 18)

- [Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.10084/) (2019)
- [A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.05426/) (2017)
- [FEVER: a large-scale dataset for Fact Extraction and VERification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.05355/) (2018)
- [ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.15056/) (2023)
- [BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedure](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.05794/) (2022)
- [Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17548/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Struggle to Learn Long-Tail Knowledge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.08411/) (2022)
- [Benchmarking Zero-shot Text Classification: Datasets, Evaluation and Entailment Approach](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.00161/) (2019)
- [From Pretraining Data to Language Models to Downstream Tasks: Tracking the Trails of Political Biases Leading to Unfair NLP Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.08283/) (2023)
- [Parsing Argumentation Structures in Persuasive Essays](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1604.07370/) (2016)
- [ChatGPT-4 Outperforms Experts and Crowd Workers in Annotating Political Twitter Messages with Zero-Shot Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.06588/) (2023)
- [The science of fake news](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.07903/) (2023)
- [Automated Annotation with Generative AI Requires Validation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.00176/) (2023)
- [Large Language Model Hacking: Quantifying the Hidden Risks of Using LLMs for Text Annotation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.08825/) (2025)
- [Best Practices for Text Annotation with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.05129/) (2024)
- [What is the Essence of a Claim? Cross-Domain Claim Identification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1704.07203/) (2017)
- [Natural Language Decompositions of Implicit Content Enable Better Text Representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14583/) (2023)
- [Prompt Stability Scoring for Text Annotation with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.02039/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

A large part of political discourse on social media is built and expressed at a level of claims: i.e. declarative, typically single-clause statements, which convey a particular interpretation of reality and can range from factual to evaluative. Moreover, rather than occurring randomly, claims coalesce, recur in patterns, and come to be associated with different world views. When paired with structural computational tools such as Social Network Analysis, claims can be a powerful unit of analysis to study political phenomena such as echo chambers or polarisation. In this paper, we present a pipeline that uses a large language model (LLM) to inductively extract and catalogue claims from large social media corpora, and apply it to two different Twitter datasets: one relating to the 2020 US presidential election and the other to the 2022 FIFA World Cup. We comprehensively evaluate the approach by measuring the pipeline's recall and precision against manually annotated samples, run ablation studies isolating the contribution of its various components, and perform a qualitative error analysis. We discuss the value of the approach in the context of Computational Social Science research, and illustrate its capabilities by presenting the claims catalogue obtained from each dataset.