Back to Home

Request Correction

Use this form to request corrections to the paper metadata. Select the fields that need correction and provide the correct information.

Correction Guidelines

  1. Click the edit button next to a field to report a correction.
  2. Fill in the suggested correction value for each field you want to correct.
  3. Provide your name and email so we can contact you if needed.

Paper Information

lrec2026-ws-politicalnlp-02

Decoding News Narratives: A Critical Analysis of Large Language Models in Framing Detection

Paper Fields

Click the edit button next to a field to report a correction.

Title

Decoding News Narratives: A Critical Analysis of Large Language Models in Framing Detection

Abstract

The growing complexity and diversity of news coverage have made framing analysis a crucial yet challenging task in computational social science. Traditional approaches, including manual annotation and fine-tuned models, remain limited by high annotation costs, domain specificity, and inconsistent generalisation. Instruction-based large language models (LLMs) offer a promising alternative, yet their reliability for framing analysis remains insufficiently understood. In this paper, we conduct a systematic evaluation of several LLMs, including GPT-3.5/4, FLAN-T5, and Llama 3, across zero-shot, few-shot, and explanation-based prompting settings. Focusing on domain shift and inherent annotation ambiguity, we show that model performance is highly sensitive to prompt design and prone to systematic errors on ambiguous cases. Although LLMs, particularly GPT-4, exhibit stronger cross-domain generalisation, they also display systematic biases, most notably a tendency to conflate emotional language with framing. To enable principled evaluation under real-world topic diversity, we introduce a new dataset of out-of-domain news headlines covering diverse subjects. Finally, by analysing agreement patterns across multiple models on existing framing datasets, we demonstrate that cross-model consensus provides a useful signal for identifying contested annotations, offering a practical approach to dataset auditing in low-resource settings.


Authors

Expand an author to correct their information. Use the remove button to request author removal, or add a new author.


PDF Attachment

You may attach a PDF as a corrected version of the paper. Max file size: 10MB. Only PDF files are accepted.

Drag & drop a PDF here, or click to select

Your Information

Author Declaration *

Select at least one field to correct using the edit buttons above.