Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Inclusivity in Large Language Models: Personality Traits and Gender Bias in Scientific Abstracts

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2406.19497 v1 pith:75IDYQAQ submitted 2024-06-27 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords modelsbiasesgenderlargellmsscientificabstractsacademic
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized to assist in scientific and academic writing, helping authors enhance the coherence of their articles. Previous studies have highlighted stereotypes and biases present in LLM outputs, emphasizing the need to evaluate these models for their alignment with human narrative styles and potential gender biases. In this study, we assess the alignment of three prominent LLMs - Claude 3 Opus, Mistral AI Large, and Gemini 1.5 Flash - by analyzing their performance on benchmark text-generation tasks for scientific abstracts. We employ the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) framework to extract lexical, psychological, and social features from the generated texts. Our findings indicate that, while these models generally produce text closely resembling human authored content, variations in stylistic features suggest significant gender biases. This research highlights the importance of developing LLMs that maintain a diversity of writing styles to promote inclusivity in academic discourse.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Guardians and Offenders: A Survey on Harmful Content Generation and Safety Mitigation of LLM

    cs.CL 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    The submission's abstract promises an LLM safety survey, but the provided body is the opening page of an unrelated arithmetic-dynamics paper, so the artifact is internally inconsistent.

Pith tools