Wisdom of the AI Crowd (AI-CROWD) for Ground Truth Approximation in Content Analysis: A Research Protocol & Validation Using Eleven Large Language Models

Human Label Variation (HLV), i.e. systematic differences among annotators' judgments, remains underexplored in benchmarks despite rapid progress in large language model (LLM) development. We address this gap by introducing an evaluation protocol for multimodal large language model (MLLM) benchmarking that explicitly accounts for two conditions: (1) human label agreement and (2) disagreement. We apply this protocol to two state-of-the-art MLLM families (Gemma 3, Qwen 2.5 VL) using non-aggregated human annotations from a social media content classification dataset. Across tasks, we find that larger models tend to perform best on high-agreement subsets, yet often underperform medium-sized models when human disagreement is high, indicating that parameter count alone does not determine sensitivity to ambiguity and subjectivity. These results show that benchmarks based solely on consensus labels can overstate model capabilities in such domains and that incorporating human label variation yields more realistic and robust assessments of MLLMs in content moderation pipelines.

Current research primarily focuses on model performance, while comparatively less attention has been devoted to uncertainty estimation, particularly in settings where LLMs are increasingly used to generate annotated data. We introduce a framework combining conformal prediction with Collaborative Filtering-style annotators' representation to model LLM behavior in relation to human annotators and to analyze patterns of agreement and disagreement. Using Non-Conformity Scores, we introduce the Ghost Prediction metric and the Ghost Annotator representation to quantify cases in which model predictions diverge from all available human annotations. We compute cosine similarity measures to explore differences in model behavior across sociodemographic axes. We evaluated four LLMs of different size and families across four content moderation datasets. Our finding shows that while we find that all models uncertainty increases with annotator disagreement, larger models tend to be more confident in the classification of texts that are not aligned with any human annotation. Finally, the Ghost Annotator framework reveals a consistent and robust pattern of demographic misalignment, suggesting a structural bias likely rooted in pretraining corpora.

While many researchers use Large Language Models (LLMs) through chat-based access, their real potential lies in leveraging LLMs via application programming interfaces (APIs). This paper conceptualizes LLMs as universal text processing machines and presents a comprehensive workflow for employing LLMs in three qualitative and quantitative content analysis tasks: (1) annotation (an umbrella term for qualitative coding, labeling and text classification), (2) summarization, and (3) information extraction. The workflow is explicitly human-centered. Researchers design, supervise, and validate each stage of the LLM process to ensure rigor and transparency. Our approach synthesizes insights from extensive methodological literature across multiple disciplines: political science, sociology, computer science, psychology, and management. We outline validation procedures and best practices to address key limitations of LLMs, such as their black-box nature, prompt sensitivity, and tendency to hallucinate. To facilitate practical implementation, we provide supplementary materials, including a prompt library and Python code in Jupyter Notebook format, accompanied by detailed usage instructions.