Probing Social Bias in Labor Market Text Generation by ChatGPT : A Masked Language Model Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As generative large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT gain widespread adoption in various domains, their potential to propagate and amplify social biases, particularly in high-stakes areas such as the labor market, has become a pressing concern. AI algorithms are not only widely used in the selection of job applicants, individual job seekers may also make use of generative LLMs to help develop their job application materials. Against this backdrop, this research builds on a novel experimental design to examine social biases within ChatGPT-generated job applications in response to real job advertisements. By simulating the process of job application creation, we examine the language patterns and biases that emerge when the model is prompted with diverse job postings. Notably, we present a novel bias evaluation framework based on Masked Language Models to quantitatively assess social bias based on validated inventories of social cues/words, enabling a systematic analysis of the language used. Our findings show that the increasing adoption of generative AI, not only by employers but also increasingly by individual job seekers, can reinforce and exacerbate gender and social inequalities in the labor market through the use of biased and gendered language.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".