Dissecting Subjectivity and the "Ground Truth" Illusion in Data Annotation

In machine learning, "ground truth" refers to the assumed correct labels used to train and evaluate models. However, the foundational "ground truth" paradigm rests on a positivistic fallacy that treats human disagreement as technical noise rather than a vital sociotechnical signal. This systematic literature review analyzes research published between 2020 and 2025 across seven premier venues: ACL, AIES, CHI, CSCW, EAAMO, FAccT, and NeurIPS, investigating the mechanisms in data annotation practices that facilitate this "consensus trap". Our identification phase captured 30,897 records, which were refined via a tiered keyword filtration schema to a high-recall corpus of 3,042 records for manual screening, resulting in a final included corpus of 346 papers for qualitative synthesis. Our reflexive thematic analysis reveals that systemic failures in positional legibility, combined with the recent architectural shift toward human-as-verifier models, specifically the reliance on model-mediated annotations, introduce deep-seated anchoring bias and effectively remove human voices from the loop. We further demonstrate how geographic hegemony imposes Western norms as universal benchmarks, often enforced by the performative alignment of precarious data workers who prioritize requester compliance over honest subjectivity to avoid economic penalties. Critiquing the "noisy sensor" fallacy, where statistical models misdiagnose cultural pluralism as random error, we argue for reclaiming disagreement as a high-fidelity signal essential for building culturally competent models. To address these systemic tensions, we propose a roadmap for pluralistic annotation infrastructures that shift the objective from discovering a singular "right" answer to mapping the diversity of human experience.

'Simulacrum of Stories': Examining Large Language Models as Qualitative Research Participants

The recent excitement around generative models has sparked a wave of proposals suggesting the replacement of human participation and labor in research and development--e.g., through surveys, experiments, and interviews--with synthetic research data generated by large language models (LLMs). We conducted interviews with 19 qualitative researchers to understand their perspectives on this paradigm shift. Initially skeptical, researchers were surprised to see similar narratives emerge in the LLM-generated data when using the interview probe. However, over several conversational turns, they went on to identify fundamental limitations, such as how LLMs foreclose participants' consent and agency, produce responses lacking in palpability and contextual depth, and risk delegitimizing qualitative research methods. We argue that the use of LLMs as proxies for participants enacts the surrogate effect, raising ethical and epistemological concerns that extend beyond the technical limitations of current models to the core of whether LLMs fit within qualitative ways of knowing.