Framing in the Presence of Supporting Data: A Case Study in U.S. Economic News

The mainstream media has much leeway in what it chooses to cover and how it covers it. These choices have real-world consequences on what people know and their subsequent behaviors. However, the lack of objective measures to evaluate editorial choices makes research in this area particularly difficult. In this paper, we argue that there are newsworthy topics where objective measures exist in the form of supporting data and propose a computational framework to analyze editorial choices in this setup. We focus on the economy because the reporting of economic indicators presents us with a relatively easy way to determine both the selection and framing of various publications. Their values provide a ground truth of how the economy is doing relative to how the publications choose to cover it. To do this, we define frame prediction as a set of interdependent tasks. At the article level, we learn to identify the reported stance towards the general state of the economy. Then, for every numerical quantity reported in the article, we learn to identify whether it corresponds to an economic indicator and whether it is being reported in a positive or negative way. To perform our analysis, we track six American publishers and each article that appeared in the top 10 slots of their landing page between 2015 and 2023.

Prevalence and prevention of large language model use in crowd work

We show that the use of large language models (LLMs) is prevalent among crowd workers, and that targeted mitigation strategies can significantly reduce, but not eliminate, LLM use. On a text summarization task where workers were not directed in any way regarding their LLM use, the estimated prevalence of LLM use was around 30%, but was reduced by about half by asking workers to not use LLMs and by raising the cost of using them, e.g., by disabling copy-pasting. Secondary analyses give further insight into LLM use and its prevention: LLM use yields high-quality but homogeneous responses, which may harm research concerned with human (rather than model) behavior and degrade future models trained with crowdsourced data. At the same time, preventing LLM use may be at odds with obtaining high-quality responses; e.g., when requesting workers not to use LLMs, summaries contained fewer keywords carrying essential information. Our estimates will likely change as LLMs increase in popularity or capabilities, and as norms around their usage change. Yet, understanding the co-evolution of LLM-based tools and users is key to maintaining the validity of research done using crowdsourcing, and we provide a critical baseline before widespread adoption ensues.