Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to annotate cultural texts at scales that are impractical for human coders. However, before their outputs are treated as measurements of latent social constructs, it is necessary to establish whether those measurements are reliable. This study evaluates five LLMs as zero-shot annotators of four social constructs expressed in English song lyrics: self-esteem, self-control, seeking belonging, and seeking recognition. Using repeated annotations of a large lyric corpus, we examine three properties of LLM-based measurement: consistency across repeated runs, convergence across models, and transferability of consensus labels to supervised classification. The findings show that LLM-based measurement is not uniformly reliable across constructs. Self-esteem exhibits the strongest repeated-measurement reliability across models, while seeking recognition is generally less stable; self-control and seeking belonging show intermediate but model-dependent reliability. Downstream classification further indicates that consensus LLM labels contain learnable signal, although transferability does not itself establish construct validity. Repeated-measurement stability and cross-model convergence should therefore be reported before LLM annotations are treated as scalable measurements in cultural analytics.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1 : Psychological Needs as Credible Song Signals [ 5 ] .
Dimension
Binary States
Code Position
Self-Esteem
HSE (+) / LSE (-)
1
Self-Control
HSC (+) / LSC (-)
2
Seeking Belonging
PSB (+) / NSB (-)
3
Seeking Recognition
PSR (+) / NSR (-)
4
TABLE I : Binary Coding Scheme for Latent Constructs
Dataset
n
Train/Test
16-category balanced (joint 4-bit model)
960
768/192
Per-construct binary (four separate models)
1,000
800/200
TABLE II : Internal Evaluation Sets
Dimension
Positive
Negative
Seeking Belonging
995 (63.3%)
577 (36.7%)
Self-Control
654 (41.6%)
918 (58.4%)
Self-Esteem
501 (31.9%)
1,071 (68.1%)
Seeking Recognition
220 (14.0%)
1,352 (86.0%)
TABLE III : External Validation Set Prevalence ( n=1,572 )
Fig. 2 : Category distributions across the five models. Each chart shows counts for categories 0–15.
LLM
Construct / Classification
n
Fleiss’ κ
95% CI
SE
Interpretation
GPT-4o-mini
16-category
55,982
.517
[.513, .521]
.002
Moderate
Self-Esteem
55,982
.801
[.796, .805]
.002
Almost Perfect
Self-Control
55,982
.719
[.714, .724]
.003
Substantial
Belonging
55,982
.577
[.568, .587]
.005
Moderate
Recognition
55,982
.467
[.459, .474]
.004
Moderate
o3-mini
16-category
4,583
.614
[.601, .626]
.006
Substantial
TABLE IV : Within-Model Reliability Within Each LLM Across Repeated Rounds
Rnd.
Construct
κ
95% CI
Interpretation
1
Self-Esteem
.605
[.601, .609]
Substantial
1
Self-Control
.481
[.477, .485]
Moderate
1
Seeking Belonging
.442
[.438, .446]
Moderate
1
Seeking Recognition
.421
[.416, .427]
Moderate
2
Self-Esteem
.608
[.600, .615]
Substantial
2
Self-Control
.479
[.471, .487]
Moderate
TABLE V : Inter-Model Agreement Across Five LLMs
Measure
κ
Raw Agreement
Interpretation
Full 16-category
.459
64.84%
Moderate
Self-Esteem
.816
92.33%
Almost Perfect
Self-Control
.752
90.96%
Substantial
Seeking Belonging
.337
80.33%
Fair
Seeking Recognition
.512
90.88%
Moderate
TABLE VI : Agreement Between Gemini and GPT-4o-mini
Construct
Macro-F1
Precision
Recall
Accuracy
Test Loss
Self-Esteem
.732
.771
.740
.740
.598
Self-Control
.696
.712
.700
.700
.657
Seeking Belonging
.698
.707
.700
.700
.657
Seeking Recognition
.684
.687
.685
.685
.580
TABLE VII : Balanced Binary Classifier Performance
Construct
Precision
Recall
Self-Esteem
.524
.559
Self-Control
.447
.928
Seeking Belonging
.679
.969
Seeking Recognition
.207
.886
TABLE VIII : External Validation Performance ( n=1,572 )
Fig. 3 : Confusion matrices for the external validation set ( n=1,572 ).