arXiv (All)
open access
Observational Equivalence of LLM and Human Annotation
In this paper, we show that LLM and human coding are observationally equivalent in terms of annotation quality: recent LLMs agree with expert coders at rates comparable to those observed among experts themselves. We demonstrate this through replications of text-classification tasks from 14 peer-revi
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Research in Machine Learning : Recent Progress, Classification of Methods, and Future Directions#478166
- Research in Machine Learning : Recent Progress, Classification of Methods, and Future Directions#478139
- Can Generalist Agents Automate Data Curation?#1036719
- AI Fact-Checking in the Wild: A Field Evaluation of LLM-Written Community Notes on X#635793
- AI Fact-Checking in the Wild: A Field Evaluation of LLM-Written Community Notes on X#633444
Record · ID 1036816
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive