Count Evidence, Not Sentences: Tempered Evidence Fusion of LLM Judgments for Long-Text Value Measurement

Measuring subjective constructs in naturally occurring social media text requires annotation procedures that are theoretically grounded, empirically validated, and transferable to an encoder model for scalable prediction. Using non-English social media posts annotated according to Schwartz's theory of basic human values, we investigate how different LLMs, prompts, and instruction languages operationalize the expression of values in text. We argue that although texts may permit multiple plausible interpretations, theory-based value definitions can constrain interpretations and reduce spurious value attributions. Beyond precision, recall, and F1, we evaluate structural alignment between values, error structure, confidence-ambiguity relations, and annotation stability. We show that different LLMs produce different value interpretations. Iterative prompt calibration through error analysis reduces misattributions and improves alignment with expert annotations. We also derive targeted expert verification rules from recurrent error structures and use them during corpus annotation. Finally, we show that LLM annotations can be transferred to an encoder model through soft-label training, retaining theory-based value interpretations and information about uncertainty in value expression.

We study neural multi-label classification under severe label imbalance through sentence-level detection of the 19 refined Schwartz human values in 74k English news and manifesto sentences (ValueEval'24 corpus). Each sentence carries a roughly balanced moral-presence label and a 19-way value annotation. First, moral presence is learnable from single sentences: a DeBERTa-base classifier reaches positive-class $F_1 \approx 0.73$ at the default threshold, which calibration does not improve. Second, comparing direct multi-label detectors with presence-gated hierarchies under an 8 GB consumer-grade GPU budget, we find that gating does not improve over direct prediction, as gate recall becomes a bottleneck. Third, studying lightweight auxiliary signals and small ensembles, we isolate decision-threshold calibration as a decisive, often overlooked factor: a standard text-only baseline already matches the best official ValueEval'24 English run at the default threshold (macro-$F_1 = 0.282$ vs. $\approx 0.28$), and tuning the threshold on validation alone raises it to $0.315$, most of our overall gain. Lightweight features do not survive a paired per-seed test; a soft-voting ensemble reaches our best macro-$F_1 = 0.332$. Calibration is not architecture-specific: it reproduces on RoBERTa-base, where the gain is larger ($+0.043$). To our knowledge, this is the first systematic comparison of direct and presence-gated architectures, lightweight feature-augmented encoders, and instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) at sentence level; benchmarked 7-9B LLMs (zero-/few-shot and QLoRA) lag behind the supervised ensemble under the same budget. We provide empirical guidance for compute-efficient, value-aware NLP models.

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, and extending the decision-model comparison to eleven open-weight systems released in the week after it. 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.