ArticlePloS one2024
GPT-4 as an X data annotator: Unraveling its performance on a stance classification task.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated chest X-ray disease screening using large language models and deep convolutional neural networks on the MIMIC-CXR dataset.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Towards scalable and reliable coding of semantic property norms: ChatGPT vs. an improved AC-PLT.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Large Language Models' Accuracy in Emulating Human Experts' Evaluation of Public Sentiments about Heated Tobacco Products on Social Media: Evaluation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Promises and pitfalls of using LLMs to identify actor stances in political discourse.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data annotation in NLP is a costly and time-consuming task, traditionally handled by human experts who require extensive training to enhance the task-related background knowledge. Besides, labeling social media texts is particularly challenging due to their brevity, informality, creativity, and varying human perceptions regarding the sociocultural context of the world. With the emergence of GPT models and their proficiency in various NLP tasks, this study aims to establish a performance baseline for GPT-4 as a social media text annotator. To achieve this, we employ our own dataset of tweets, expertly labeled for stance detection with full inter-rater agreement among three annotators. We experiment with three techniques: Zero-shot, Few-shot, and Zero-shot with Chain-of-Thoughts to create prompts for the labeling task. We utilize four training sets constructed with different label sets, including human labels, to fine-tune transformer-based large language models and various combinations of traditional machine learning models with embeddings for stance classification. Finally, all fine-tuned models undergo evaluation using a common testing set with human-generated labels. We use the results from models trained on human labels as the benchmark to assess GPT-4's potential as an annotator across the three prompting techniques. Based on the experimental findings, GPT-4 achieves comparable results through the Few-shot and Zero-shot Chain-of-Thoughts prompting methods. However, none of these labeling techniques surpass the top three models fine-tuned on human labels. Moreover, we introduce the Zero-shot Chain-of-Thoughts as an effective strategy for aspect-based social media text labeling, which performs better than the standard Zero-shot and yields results similar to the high-performing yet expensive Few-shot approach.
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.