aiqbench analysis
This study provides empirical evidence on the reliability of GPT-5.4 for inductive content analysis, demonstrating that its performance aligns closely with human coders when processing open-ended survey data. The findings suggest LLMs can serve as scalable support tools for qualitative research, though agreement metrics vary significantly depending on specific data characteristics and variable complexity.
LLMs for Survey Text Analysis - A Performance Comparison Between Humans and GPT-5 on Inductive Content Analysis
arXiv:2608.22417v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to support text analysis in qualitative research, yet evidence on their performance in inductive content analysis remains limited. This study compares human and LLM-based inductive coding of open-ended survey responses from 903 answers across six variables from a European PhD student survey. Five human coders performed inductive content analysis following a standardized coding scheme, while an LLM (GPT-5.4) conducted the same task using an established prompting procedure. Agreement between human and LLM outputs was assessed using the Adjusted Rand Index (ARI). Results showed an alignment between humans and the LLM, with ARI values of 0.61 for coding and 0.54 for theme generation. These values were close to the internal consistency of coding and theme results within humans (ARI = 0.68) and the LLM (ARI = 0.76). Agreement varied widely across variables, with low within-entity consistency consistently linked to low between-entity agreement, underscoring the role of data characteristics and individual performance in reliability. Overall, the findings suggest that LLMs can approximate human coding in this case-specific setting, particularly at the coding level, and may serve as a scalable support tool for inductive qualitative analysis.
Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to support text analysis in qualitative research, yet evidence on their performance in inductive content analysis remains limited. This study compares human and LLM-based inductive coding of open-ended survey responses from 903 answers across six variables from a European PhD student survey. Five human coders performed inductive content analysis following a standardized coding scheme, while an LLM (GPT-5.4) conducted the same task using an established prompting procedure. Agreement between human and LLM outputs was assessed using the Adjusted Rand Index (ARI). Results showed an alignment between humans and the LLM, with ARI values of 0.61 for coding and 0.54 for theme generation. These values were close to the internal consistency of coding and theme results within humans (ARI = 0.68) and the LLM (ARI = 0.76). Agreement varied widely across variables, with low within-entity consistency consistently linked to low between-entity agreement, underscoring the role of data characteristics and individual performance in reliability. Overall, the findings suggest that LLMs can approximate human coding in this case-specific setting, particularly at the coding level, and may serve as a scalable support tool for inductive qualitative analysis.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)
arXiv:2608.22417 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2608.22417v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.22417 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 291 words
Related coverage
AI Voice Phishing Performs on Par With Human Scammers at a Fraction of the Cost
LessWrong · Jul 20, 2026
Links #5: 2026/07
LessWrong · Jul 31, 2026
Links #3: 2026/06 Part 1
LessWrong · Jun 15, 2026

[AINews] Meta Muse Wonder & Wonder Full: MSL’s Claude 5.5-tier Frontier Model
Latent Space · Oct 13, 2026