social science data teams

Abstract: Assessing whether qualitative responses collected from semi-structured questions are ready for a particular analysis goal is a persistent challenge. Manual qualitative analysis is interpretive and labor-intensive, while existing automated methods often lack a dataset-level perspective for deciding whether a response set supports a researcher-selected analytical lens. We introduce QuAD, a framework for quantitative pre-analysis assessment of qualitative response datasets. QuAD compares a reconstructed intrinsic cluster distribution reconstructed from responses with an extrinsic, researcher-defined analytical lens derived from metadata. QuAD is structured into a four-quadrant assessment whose metrics are read jointly, from lens-level relations to within-cluster variation, to provide fitness-for-purpose signals for revealing general patterns and unique insights. Because this assessment relies on lens-conditioned inter-response dissimilarity, we propose a content-aware multi-agent system with two-stage instruction generation and adaptive anchors to improve scoring consistency. We validate QuAD through controlled experiments on synthetic data, including robustness and baseline comparisons, and a real-world social survey case study. The case study shows how QuAD quantitatively assesses whether a selected analysis axis is promising and also surfaces representative or unusual responses for human interpretation.

Abstract: Mixed methods research offers established strategies for integrating qualitative and quantitative evidence, but less guidance for integrating two computational representations of the same qualitative corpus. This methodological study introduces Parallel-Then-Integrated (PTI), a four-step procedure for explicit and traceable integration. We present PTI using 1,203 interview paragraphs from 29 mothers in Nepal. The two representations were ontology-guided Patient Voice (PV) coding with PVminer and data-driven themes generated through non-negative matrix factorization (NMF). A theme-complete crosswalk documented convergence, divergence, and preprocessing-sensitive differences. Depression status, based on Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores, served as a secondary external anchor for exploratory association checks. PTI provides a structured approach for integrating computational representations of qualitative text within mixed methods research.

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) annotate and scale political text or constructs by generating text tokens. A new class of models, which TypeSafe markets as "System One" models, instead returns decisions and probability distributions across a user-supplied fixed answer set. A commercial model, JEV, is advertised as having a dramatic cost and speed advantage over traditional LLMs along with better calibrated decisions. As such, it might be useful for social scientists looking to quickly and cost-effectively annotate or scale large corpora of text and have a reliable indicator of a classifier's uncertainty. Yet, the accuracy of these claims and the broader model accuracy in social science text-based tasks are not yet established. In this paper, we do just that and hope to establish the suitability of JEV for social science tasks. We compare JEV with LLMs and human coders from published research, and with a current mid-tier commercial LLM (GPT-6 Luna) and an open-weight alternative (Qwen3.8-27B). We find that JEV matches, or comes close to, the capabilities of both LLMs in a variety of tasks. However, we find no cost advantage over GPT-6 Luna at OpenAI's batch prices. Further, we find that, when each question is asked once, JEV's probabilities are better calibrated than GPT-6 Luna's token probabilities, but not consistently better than Qwen3.8-27B's. We conclude that unless researchers have a need for speed, JEV's only obvious advantage is ease of parsing the underlying choice probabilities.

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate, complete, and transform information in settings where their outputs can shape consequential decisions, raising concerns about their impact on demographic disparities. In this context, causal inference provides a principled basis for assessing fairness, because it attributes observed disparities to the mechanisms that generated them, which a purely statistical approach cannot do even with infinite data. In LLM generation, a query may request several causally related variables, each of which is both an outcome of interest and a possible cause of other outputs, and the information supplied in the prompt need not follow a topological or a temporal order. This calls for methods that can analyze and selectively remove disparities from such a flexible generation process. In this paper we introduce Causally Fair Generation with LLMs (CFG, for short). CFG extracts relevant concepts, grounds generation in a reference population and causal diagram, and removes user-selected causal effects. CFG also allows pathways deemed justifiable for the task's utility to be retained, which is known in legal literature as business necessity. Further, we provide formal guarantees for our method when eliminating all discriminatory causal effects in the adapted population model, under appropriate causal assumptions. We evaluate CFG with four LLMs in three real-world settings based on population data and on a synthetic dataset with a known causal ground truth.

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) show considerable potential in simulating human attitudes and preferences. Prior work finds that LLM-generated responses can compress the range of attitudes found within populations and misrepresent particular subgroups in ways that vary across models and topics. We introduce Population Fidelity, an evaluation framework that distinguishes key conditions required for a set of LLM-generated responses to represent a population. It incorporates three dimensions: group-level accuracy, the amount of between-group variation, and the structure of that variation. We demonstrate the framework's utility in two ways. First, we reproduce a prior study of "machine bias" in LLM survey responses and apply the framework to its models and more recent ones, showing that poor representation reflects not only insufficient between-group variation but also variation assigned to the wrong groups. Second, we evaluate one proposed approach to improving models' population representativeness: cultural fine-tuning. We find that cultural fine-tuning can improve alignment with the survey center without improving the representation of within-population differences, a distinction that measures of aggregate agreement do not capture. We argue that representing a population requires models to reproduce several features of human attitudinal variation simultaneously. Our framework organizes these features and provides reusable code, data, and trained models for evaluating population fidelity across substantive domains and assessing proposed alignment methods.

Abstract: A non-significant coefficient in a dynamic panel model need not imply the absence of a relationship. It may instead reflect heterogeneous effects averaged toward zero, reciprocal dynamics overlooked by a recursive specification, or relationships masked by the omission of correlated covariates. Standard linear estimators cannot distinguish among these possibilities. We develop an inferential workflow for political panel data that resolves this ambiguity by combining flexible autoregressive estimation, forecast-necessity testing, functional characterization, and same-data linear benchmarking. The workflow first identifies relationships required for out-of-sample prediction, then characterizes their functional form across political contexts, and finally, distinguishes differences arising from estimator flexibility from those due to model specification. Applied to the causal sequence model of democratization on the V-Dem panel of 113 countries, the workflow reproduces the model's central finding - the protective belt of civil society, the rule of law, and institutionalized parties - while recovering reciprocal relationships from democracy to its institutional supports that a linear model cannot detect. Most importantly, three weak published direct effects, of which two are null, and one is marginally significant, receive three different diagnoses: one dissolves under the full specification, one reflects heterogeneous effects averaged toward zero, and one was masked by the reduced variable set. The workflow corrects the published record in both directions, removing one relationship and recovering two. More broadly, the workflow provides a framework for evaluating dynamic political theories under a model class capable of representing nonlinear and reciprocal mechanisms while preserving relationship-level interpretation and explicit inferential standards.

Abstract: Large language models can generate several records within one autoregressive completion, making earlier answers available as context for later records. This paper shows that such shared-completion batching can distort relationships among variables in the resulting synthetic data, using controlled tests on synthetic survey respondents. In a matched experiment on 2,000 European Social Survey profiles, generating ten rather than one respondent per request increases mean absolute error in within-country correlations by 48-58% for Qwen3.8-27B and 114-127% for Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct across three seeds, holding profiles, examples, questions and decoding parameters fixed. The distortion primarily reflects exaggerated relationship strength, while retaining substantial agreement with the human ordering of correlations. Controlled interventions establish answer history as a causal channel: re-pairing the same preceding values, with profiles and marginal distributions fixed, changes correlations among subsequently generated responses. Hiding preceding answers reduces correlation error in the tested settings but worsens marginal accuracy. Exploratory corrections across social-attitude, health and economic data likewise show that lower correlation error can coexist with worse marginal distributions and regression estimates. Request construction is therefore part of the data-generating process, and synthetic-data validity must be evaluated against the analyses the generated data are intended to support.

Abstract: Computational social science increasingly relies on large language models for text annotation, and the validity of published findings now rests on the labels generated by such models. Decision models, a new model class built for categorical question answering, answer typed questions with a choice, a probability distribution over the label set, and a confidence score rather than free text, at a small fraction of frontier inference prices. Whether their answers are accurate, and whether that stated confidence can be trusted on social science constructs, are unknown. Here, we mirror the evaluation of Ziems et al. (2024) on 18 computational social science classification tasks (7,977 items), comparing the first commercial decision model and two open-weight counterparts against 19 frontier and open-weight language models under the same zero-shot protocol. The decision model trails the per-task best LLM on 14 of 15 evaluation tasks, with a median deficit of 11.6 macro-F1 points, at a median 44 times lower measured cost. Its confidence is better calibrated than the verbalized confidence of 16 of the 19 LLMs, yet three frontier models show lower median calibration error (0.157 against 0.066). While items above 0.9 confidence are typically labeled accurately (median accuracy 0.815), on one task, empathy in peer-support dialogues, the model reports high confidence while performing near chance. Nonetheless, our results suggest that decision models are useful as a first step in the annotation pipeline: routing low-confidence items to an LLM matches or exceeds the LLM alone at a quarter to half of its cost.