AICOME框架验证AI测量个体与群体效应

AI Contextual Measurement for Recovering Individual and Group-Level Effects: Validation Against Survey Measures and an Occupational Application

精选理由

AICOME框架能从现有数据中恢复重要理论构念,周工作时长验证效果最佳,但信息受限时性能会下降。

AI 摘要

研究人员提出AICOME框架,评估AI衍生的受访者级测量能否在情境模型中恢复个体和群体级效应。研究使用2022年中国家庭追踪调查(CFPS)数据,比较了AI测量与传统调查测量在计算机使用、外语使用、周工作时长和管理责任等方面的表现。结果显示,当拥有丰富的受访者和工作特征信息时,AI情境测量能恢复调查变量中包含的大部分情境模型信息。

原文 · arXiv cs.LG

AI Contextual Measurement for Recovering Individual and Group-Level Effects: Validation Against Survey Measures and an Occupational Application

Researchers increasingly use artificial intelligence to construct measures of social, organizational, and occupational characteristics that are absent from conventional surveys. We propose AICOME, AI COntextual MEasurement, a framework for evaluating whether AI-derived respondent-level measures can recover individual and group-level effects in contextual models. The key idea is that an AI measure constructed at the respondent level can be used to derive its group-level aggregate and its individual deviation, allowing researchers to estimate both between-group and within-group associations rather than treating AI measurement as response prediction alone. We validate the framework using the 2022 China Family Panel Studies (CFPS), where occupations provide the empirical grouping structure and several job-related survey variables provide validation benchmarks. For computer use, foreign-language use, weekly hours, and management responsibilities, we compare survey measures with AI-derived measures in response-level, model-level, contextual, and boundary-condition validations. The results show that AI contextual measurement can recover much of the contextual-model information contained in observed survey variables when rich respondent and job characteristics are available. Weekly hours provides the strongest validation case, with AI-derived measures reproducing the large negative between- and within-occupation associations with satisfaction observed in CFPS. The framework also identifies clear boundary conditions: performance deteriorates when information is restricted to occupation and basic demographics, and recovery is weaker when several related concepts are treated as simultaneously unobserved. The findings suggest that AICOME is most useful for recovering a limited number of theoretically important constructs from rich existing datasets.