← 研踪 PaperTrailACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.92 · 记录 #1
What is a protest anyway? Codebook conceptualization is still a first-order concern in LLM-era classification
来源日期(仅到月份) 2026-07
来源记录日期 2026-07
雷达观测 2026-11-01 22:06
摘要
Generative large language models (LLMs) are now used extensively for text classification in computational social science (CSS). In this work, we focus on the steps before and after LLM prompting: conceptualization of the categories to classify and using LLM predictions in downstream statistical inference. We argue these steps have been overlooked in much of LLM-era CSS and LLMs can tempt analysts to skip conceptualization altogether. For example, a political scientist classifying “protest” with LLMs may never be forced to craft a definition: unlike human annotators who would ask clarifying questions, an LLM can silently accept an underspecified concept to classify and return plausible-looking labels. Using simulations, we show that conceptualization failures induce downstream inferential bias that cannot be corrected solely by a more accurate LLM or post-hoc bias correction methods. We conclude by reminding CSS analysts that conceptualization is still a first-order concern in the LLM-era and provide concrete advice for pursuing low-cost, unbiased, low-variance downstream estimates.
论文发现出处
这些页面提供论文线索,不代表同行评审或质量认证。
观测到的版本
平台记录号代表本站观测到的元数据变化,不是作者修订号。来源日期仅到月份或年份时,按该月或该年首日存档。
记录 #1 · 2026-07 · 最新观测版本
What is a protest anyway? Codebook conceptualization is still a first-order concern in LLM-era classification
Generative large language models (LLMs) are now used extensively for text classification in computational social science (CSS). In this work, we focus on the steps before and after LLM prompting: conceptualization of the categories to classify and using LLM predictions in downstream statistical inference. We argue these steps have been overlooked in much of LLM-era CSS and LLMs can tempt analysts to skip conceptualization altogether. For example, a political scientist classifying “protest” with LLMs may never be forced to craft a definition: unlike human annotators who would ask clarifying questions, an LLM can silently accept an underspecified concept to classify and return plausible-looking labels. Using simulations, we show that conceptualization failures induce downstream inferential bias that cannot be corrected solely by a more accurate LLM or post-hoc bias correction methods. We conclude by reminding CSS analysts that conceptualization is still a first-order concern in the LLM-era and provide concrete advice for pursuing low-cost, unbiased, low-variance downstream estimates.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗