ArticlePNAS nexus2024
Coding with the machines: machine-assisted coding of rare event data.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While machine coding of data has dramatically advanced in recent years, the literature raises significant concerns about validation of LLM classification showing, for example, that reliability varies greatly by prompt and temperature tuning, across subject areas and tasks-especially in "zero-shot" applications. This paper contributes to the discussion of validation in several different ways. To test the relative performance of supervised and semi-supervised algorithms when coding political data, we compare three models' performances to each other over multiple iterations for each model and to trained expert coding of data. We also examine changes in performance resulting from prompt engineering and pre-processing of source data. To ameliorate concerns regarding LLM's pre-training on test data, we assess performance by updating an existing dataset beyond what is publicly available. Overall, we find that only GPT-4 approaches trained expert coders when coding contexts familiar to human coders and codes more consistently across contexts. We conclude by discussing some benefits and drawbacks of machine coding moving forward.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.