Can Large Language Models Address Open-Target Stance Detection?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stance detection (SD) identifies a text's position towards a target, typically labeled as favor, against, or none.We introduce Open-Target Stance Detection (OTSD), the most realistic task where targets are neither seen during training nor provided as input.We evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) from GPT, Gemini, Llama, and Mistral families, comparing their performance to the only existing work, Target-Stance Extraction (TSE), which benefits from predefined targets.Unlike TSE, OTSD removes the dependency of a predefined list, making target generation and evaluation more challenging.We also provide a metric for evaluating target quality that correlates well with human judgment.Our experiments reveal that LLMs outperform TSE in target generation, both when the real target is explicitly and not explicitly mentioned in the text.Similarly, LLMs overall surpass TSE in stance detection for both explicit and non-explicit cases.However, LLMs struggle in both target generation and stance detection when the target is not explicit. 1
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".