ArticlePloS one2026
AI and social science: Automatic classification tools for big data analysis in sociological research.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examines the use of Social Network Sites for public institutional communication through a sociological, data-driven lens, focusing on the challenges and potential of automated classification tools for data analysis. Although Large Language Models are increasingly used to process social media data, a key research gap remains: few studies systematically assess whether AI-based categorizations are as reliable as human coding, especially when categories are semantically ambiguous. The research addresses the following questions: How reliable are AI-generated classifications compared to those made by human experts? Is human-machine agreement comparable to the level of agreement observed among human coders? To experimentally test this approach, we conducted a case study on Facebook posts published by two Italian universities (March 2020-March 2023), classified into eight categories of public institutional communication. Three researchers independently annotated the dataset. Human annotations are used as a benchmark to assess agreement patterns and to compare them with classifications produced by AI-based systems. Results show substantial interpretive ambiguity across several categories, mirrored by variability among human coders. Nonetheless, automated models achieve agreement with human classifications that is broadly comparable to inter-coder agreement. Overall, the findings support integrating AI as an additional coder within hybrid workflows to enable scalable and transparent sociological analysis of complex social media data.
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.