Recommender systems, stigmergy, and the tyranny of popularity

Scientific recommender systems, such as Google Scholar and Web of Science, are essential tools for discovery. Search algorithms that power work through stigmergy, a collective intelligence mechanism that surfaces useful paths through repeated engagement. While generally effective, this ``rich-get-richer'' dynamic results in a small number of high-profile papers that dominate visibility. This essay argues argue that these algorithm over-reliance on popularity fosters intellectual homogeneity and exacerbates structural inequities, stifling innovative and diverse perspectives critical for scientific progress. We propose an overhaul of search platforms to incorporate user-specific calibration, allowing researchers to manually adjust the weights of factors like popularity, recency, and relevance. We also advise platform developers on how word embeddings and LLMs could be implemented in ways that increase user autonomy. While our suggestions are particularly pertinent to aligning recommender systems with scientific values, these ideas are broadly applicable to information access systems in general. Designing platforms that increase user autonomy is an important step toward more robust and dynamic information

Scalable Qualitative Coding with LLMs: Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Matches Human Performance in Some Hermeneutic Tasks

Qualitative coding, or content analysis, extracts meaning from text to discern quantitative patterns across a corpus of texts. Recently, advances in the interpretive abilities of large language models (LLMs) offer potential for automating the coding process (applying category labels to texts), thereby enabling human researchers to concentrate on more creative research aspects, while delegating these interpretive tasks to AI. Our case study comprises a set of socio-historical codes on dense, paragraph-long passages representative of a humanistic study. We show that GPT-4 is capable of human-equivalent interpretations, whereas GPT-3.5 is not. Compared to our human-derived gold standard, GPT-4 delivers excellent intercoder reliability (Cohen's $\kappa \geq 0.79$) for 3 of 9 codes, and substantial reliability ($\kappa \geq 0.6$) for 8 of 9 codes. In contrast, GPT-3.5 greatly underperforms for all codes ($mean(\kappa) = 0.34$; $max(\kappa) = 0.55$). Importantly, we find that coding fidelity improves considerably when the LLM is prompted to give rationale justifying its coding decisions (chain-of-thought reasoning). We present these and other findings along with a set of best practices for adapting traditional codebooks for LLMs. Our results indicate that for certain codebooks, state-of-the-art LLMs are already adept at large-scale content analysis. Furthermore, they suggest the next generation of models will likely render AI coding a viable option for a majority of codebooks.