Beyond the Link: Assessing LLMs' ability to Classify Political Content across Global Media

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.17435v2
• Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2025 14:41:45 GMT
• Title: Beyond the Link: Assessing LLMs' ability to Classify Political Content across Global Media
• Authors: Alejandro De La Fuente-Cuesta, Alberto Martinez-Serra, Nienke Visscher, Laia Castro, Ana S. Cardenal,
• Abstract summary: This article evaluates whether large language models (LLMs) can accurately distinguish PC from non-PC using both the text and the URLs of news articles across five countries.<n>Using cutting-edge models, we benchmark their performance against human-coded data to assess whether URL-level analysis can approximate full-text analysis.<n>Our findings show that URLs embed relevant information and can serve as a scalable, cost-effective alternative to discern PC.
• Score: 37.149543017244234
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The use of large language models (LLMs) is becoming common in political science and digital media research. While LLMs have demonstrated ability in labelling tasks, their effectiveness to classify Political Content (PC) from URLs remains underexplored. This article evaluates whether LLMs can accurately distinguish PC from non-PC using both the text and the URLs of news articles across five countries (France, Germany, Spain, the UK, and the US) and their different languages. Using cutting-edge models, we benchmark their performance against human-coded data to assess whether URL-level analysis can approximate full-text analysis. Our findings show that URLs embed relevant information and can serve as a scalable, cost-effective alternative to discern PC. However, we also uncover systematic biases: LLMs seem to overclassify centrist news as political, leading to false positives that may distort further analyses. We conclude by outlining methodological recommendations on the use of LLMs in political science research.

Related papers

• Passing the Turing Test in Political Discourse: Fine-Tuning LLMs to Mimic Polarized Social Media Comments [0.0]
  This study explores the extent to which fine-tuned large language models (LLMs) can replicate and amplify polarizing discourse.<n>Using a curated dataset of politically charged discussions extracted from Reddit, we fine-tune an open-source LLM to produce context-aware and ideologically aligned responses.<n>The results indicate that, when trained on partisan data, LLMs are capable of producing highly plausible and provocative comments, often indistinguishable from those written by humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-17T15:41:26Z)
• Democratic or Authoritarian? Probing a New Dimension of Political Biases in Large Language Models [72.89977583150748]
  We propose a novel methodology to assess how Large Language Models align with broader geopolitical value systems.<n>We find that LLMs generally favor democratic values and leaders, but exhibit increases favorability toward authoritarian figures when prompted in Mandarin.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-15T07:52:07Z)
• Through the LLM Looking Glass: A Socratic Probing of Donkeys, Elephants, and Markets [42.55423041662188]
  The study aims to directly measure the models' biases rather than relying on external interpretations.<n>Our results reveal a consistent preference of Democratic over Republican positions across all models.<n>In economic topics, biases vary among Western LLMs, while those developed in China lean more strongly toward socialism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-20T19:40:40Z)
• Political-LLM: Large Language Models in Political Science [159.95299889946637]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been widely adopted in political science tasks.<n>Political-LLM aims to advance the comprehensive understanding of integrating LLMs into computational political science.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-09T08:47:50Z)
• Fact or Fiction? Can LLMs be Reliable Annotators for Political Truths? [2.321323878201932]
  Political misinformation poses challenges to democratic processes, shaping public opinion and trust in media. This study investigates the use of state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) as reliable annotators for detecting political factuality in news articles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-08T18:36:33Z)
• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [71.65505524599888]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language.<n>This paper shows that the ideological stance of an LLM appears to reflect the worldview of its creators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• GermanPartiesQA: Benchmarking Commercial Large Language Models for Political Bias and Sycophancy [20.06753067241866]
  We evaluate and compare the alignment of six LLMs by OpenAI, Anthropic, and Cohere with German party positions. We conduct our prompt experiment for which we use the benchmark and sociodemographic data of leading German parliamentarians.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-25T13:04:25Z)
• Quantifying Generative Media Bias with a Corpus of Real-world and Generated News Articles [12.356251871670011]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being utilised across a range of tasks and domains. This study focuses on political bias, detecting it using both supervised models and LLMs. For the first time within the journalistic domain, this study outlines a framework for quantifiable experiments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-16T01:32:04Z)
• Whose Side Are You On? Investigating the Political Stance of Large Language Models [56.883423489203786]
  We investigate the political orientation of Large Language Models (LLMs) across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics. Our investigation delves into the political alignment of LLMs across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics, spanning from abortion to LGBTQ issues. The findings suggest that users should be mindful when crafting queries, and exercise caution in selecting neutral prompt language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T04:02:24Z)
• Large Language Models: A Survey [66.39828929831017]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have drawn a lot of attention due to their strong performance on a wide range of natural language tasks.<n>LLMs' ability of general-purpose language understanding and generation is acquired by training billions of model's parameters on massive amounts of text data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-09T05:37:09Z)
• The Political Preferences of LLMs [0.0]
  I administer 11 political orientation tests, designed to identify the political preferences of the test taker, to 24 state-of-the-art conversational LLMs. Most conversational LLMs generate responses that are diagnosed by most political test instruments as manifesting preferences for left-of-center viewpoints. I demonstrate that LLMs can be steered towards specific locations in the political spectrum through Supervised Fine-Tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T02:43:10Z)
• Measurement in the Age of LLMs: An Application to Ideological Scaling [1.9413548770753526]
  This paper explores the use of large language models (LLMs) to navigate the conceptual clutter inherent to social scientific measurement tasks. We rely on LLMs' remarkable linguistic fluency to elicit ideological scales of both legislators and text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T18:34:06Z)
• Towards Human-Level Text Coding with LLMs: The Case of Fatherhood Roles in Public Policy Documents [19.65846717628022]
  Large language models (LLMs) promise automation with better results and less programming. In this study, we evaluate LLMs on three original coding tasks involving typical complexities encountered in political science settings. We find that the best prompting strategy consists of providing the LLMs with a detailed codebook, as the one provided to human coders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-20T15:34:45Z)
• Exploring the Jungle of Bias: Political Bias Attribution in Language Models via Dependency Analysis [86.49858739347412]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked intense debate regarding the prevalence of bias in these models and its mitigation. We propose a prompt-based method for the extraction of confounding and mediating attributes which contribute to the decision process. We find that the observed disparate treatment can at least in part be attributed to confounding and mitigating attributes and model misalignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T00:02:25Z)
• LM-Polygraph: Uncertainty Estimation for Language Models [71.21409522341482]
  Uncertainty estimation (UE) methods are one path to safer, more responsible, and more effective use of large language models (LLMs) We introduce LM-Polygraph, a framework with implementations of a battery of state-of-the-art UE methods for LLMs in text generation tasks, with unified program interfaces in Python. It introduces an extendable benchmark for consistent evaluation of UE techniques by researchers, and a demo web application that enriches the standard chat dialog with confidence scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-13T15:08:59Z)
• How to use LLMs for Text Analysis [0.0]
  This guide introduces Large Language Models (LLM) as a highly versatile text analysis method within the social sciences. As LLMs are easy-to-use, cheap, fast, and applicable on a broad range of text analysis tasks, many scholars believe that LLMs will transform how we do text analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-24T19:54:15Z)
• Sentiment Analysis in the Era of Large Language Models: A Reality Check [69.97942065617664]
  This paper investigates the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in performing various sentiment analysis tasks. We evaluate performance across 13 tasks on 26 datasets and compare the results against small language models (SLMs) trained on domain-specific datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T10:45:25Z)
• ElitePLM: An Empirical Study on General Language Ability Evaluation of Pretrained Language Models [78.08792285698853]
  We present a large-scale empirical study on general language ability evaluation of pretrained language models (ElitePLM) Our empirical results demonstrate that: (1) PLMs with varying training objectives and strategies are good at different ability tests; (2) fine-tuning PLMs in downstream tasks is usually sensitive to the data size and distribution; and (3) PLMs have excellent transferability between similar tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-03T14:18:10Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.