Fine-Grained Detection of Solidarity for Women and Migrants in 155 Years of German Parliamentary Debates
Authors:
Aida Kostikova,
Benjamin Paassen,
Dominik Beese,
Ole Pütz,
Gregor Wiedemann,
Steffen Eger
Abstract:
Solidarity is a crucial concept to understand social relations in societies. In this paper, we explore fine-grained solidarity frames to study solidarity towards women and migrants in German parliamentary debates between 1867 and 2022. Using 2,864 manually annotated text snippets (with a cost exceeding 18k Euro), we evaluate large language models (LLMs) like Llama 3, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4. We find th…
▽ More
Solidarity is a crucial concept to understand social relations in societies. In this paper, we explore fine-grained solidarity frames to study solidarity towards women and migrants in German parliamentary debates between 1867 and 2022. Using 2,864 manually annotated text snippets (with a cost exceeding 18k Euro), we evaluate large language models (LLMs) like Llama 3, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4. We find that GPT-4 outperforms other LLMs, approaching human annotation quality. Using GPT-4, we automatically annotate more than 18k further instances (with a cost of around 500 Euro) across 155 years and find that solidarity with migrants outweighs anti-solidarity but that frequencies and solidarity types shift over time. Most importantly, group-based notions of (anti-)solidarity fade in favor of compassionate solidarity, focusing on the vulnerability of migrant groups, and exchange-based anti-solidarity, focusing on the lack of (economic) contribution. Our study highlights the interplay of historical events, socio-economic needs, and political ideologies in sha** migration discourse and social cohesion. We also show that powerful LLMs, if carefully prompted, can be cost-effective alternatives to human annotation for hard social scientific tasks.
△ Less
Submitted 24 June, 2024; v1 submitted 9 October, 2022;
originally announced October 2022.
Did AI get more negative recently?
Authors:
Dominik Beese,
Begüm Altunbaş,
Görkem Güzeler,
Steffen Eger
Abstract:
In this paper, we classify scientific articles in the domain of natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML), as core subfields of artificial intelligence (AI), into whether (i) they extend the current state-of-the-art by the introduction of novel techniques which beat existing models or whether (ii) they mainly criticize the existing state-of-the-art, i.e. that it is deficient with…
▽ More
In this paper, we classify scientific articles in the domain of natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML), as core subfields of artificial intelligence (AI), into whether (i) they extend the current state-of-the-art by the introduction of novel techniques which beat existing models or whether (ii) they mainly criticize the existing state-of-the-art, i.e. that it is deficient with respect to some property (e.g. wrong evaluation, wrong datasets, misleading task specification). We refer to contributions under (i) as having a 'positive stance' and contributions under (ii) as having a 'negative stance' (to related work). We annotate over 1.5 k papers from NLP and ML to train a SciBERT-based model to automatically predict the stance of a paper based on its title and abstract. We then analyse large-scale trends on over 41 k papers from the last approximately 35 years in NLP and ML, finding that papers have become substantially more positive over time, but negative papers also got more negative and we observe considerably more negative papers in recent years. Negative papers are also more influential in terms of citations they receive.
△ Less
Submitted 29 June, 2023; v1 submitted 28 February, 2022;
originally announced February 2022.
