Bias in LLMs as Annotators: The Effect of Party Cues on Labelling Decision by Large Language Models

Human coders are biased. We test similar biases in Large Language Models (LLMs) as annotators. By replicating an experiment run by Ennser-Jedenastik and Meyer (2018), we find evidence that LLMs use political information, and specifically party cues, to judge political statements. Not only do LLMs use relevant information to contextualize whether a statement is positive, negative, or neutral based on the party cue, they also reflect the biases of the human-generated data upon which they have been trained. We also find that unlike humans, who are only biased when faced with statements from extreme parties, LLMs exhibit significant bias even when prompted with statements from center-left and center-right parties. The implications of our findings are discussed in the conclusion.

Machines Do See Color: A Guideline to Classify Different Forms of Racist Discourse in Large Corpora

Current methods to identify and classify racist language in text rely on small-n qualitative approaches or large-n approaches focusing exclusively on overt forms of racist discourse. This article provides a step-by-step generalizable guideline to identify and classify different forms of racist discourse in large corpora. In our approach, we start by conceptualizing racism and its different manifestations. We then contextualize these racist manifestations to the time and place of interest, which allows researchers to identify their discursive form. Finally, we apply XLM-RoBERTa (XLM-R), a cross-lingual model for supervised text classification with a cutting-edge contextual understanding of text. We show that XLM-R and XLM-R-Racismo, our pretrained model, outperform other state-of-the-art approaches in classifying racism in large corpora. We illustrate our approach using a corpus of tweets relating to the Ecuadorian ind\'igena community between 2018 and 2021.