← Back to explorer

Cultural Biases of Large Language Models and Humans in Historical Interpretation

Fabio Celli, Georgios Spathulas · Apr 3, 2025 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

This paper compares historical annotations by humans and Large Language Models. The findings reveal that both exhibit some cultural bias, but Large Language Models achieve a higher consensus on the interpretation of historical facts from short texts. While humans tend to disagree on the basis of their personal biases, Large Models disagree when they skip information or produce hallucinations. These findings have significant implications for digital humanities, enabling large-scale annotation and quantitative analysis of historical data. This offers new educational and research opportunities to explore historical interpretations from different Language Models, fostering critical thinking about bias.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 25%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"This paper compares historical annotations by humans and Large Language Models."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"This paper compares historical annotations by humans and Large Language Models."

Quality Controls

partial

Adjudication

Calibration/adjudication style controls detected.

"This paper compares historical annotations by humans and Large Language Models."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"This paper compares historical annotations by humans and Large Language Models."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"This paper compares historical annotations by humans and Large Language Models."

Human Feedback Details

Uses human feedback: No
Feedback types: None
Rater population: Not reported
Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

Evaluation modes:
Agentic eval: None
Quality controls: Adjudication
Evidence quality: Low
Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

This paper compares historical annotations by humans and Large Language Models.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

This paper compares historical annotations by humans and Large Language Models.
The findings reveal that both exhibit some cultural bias, but Large Language Models achieve a higher consensus on the interpretation of historical facts from short texts.
While humans tend to disagree on the basis of their personal biases, Large Models disagree when they skip information or produce hallucinations.

Researcher Actions

Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

This paper compares historical annotations by humans and Large Language Models.
While humans tend to disagree on the basis of their personal biases, Large Models disagree when they skip information or produce hallucinations.
These findings have significant implications for digital humanities, enabling large-scale annotation and quantitative analysis of historical data.

Why It Matters For Eval

This paper compares historical annotations by humans and Large Language Models.
While humans tend to disagree on the basis of their personal biases, Large Models disagree when they skip information or produce hallucinations.

Researcher Checklist

Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

No explicit human feedback protocol detected.
Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

No clear evaluation mode extracted.
Pass: Quality control reporting appears

Detected: Adjudication
Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.
Gap: Metric reporting is present

No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.

Self-Service

Post a Job

Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.

Create Account & Post a Job

Managed Service

For Large Projects

Done-for-You

We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.

Learn About Managed Service

For Freelancers

Join as an AI Trainer

Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.