» Articles » PMID: 39650401

Comparative Analysis of Automatic Gender Detection from Names: Evaluating the Stability and Performance of ChatGPT Namsor, and Gender-API

Overview
Date 2024 Dec 9
PMID 39650401
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The gender classification from names is crucial for uncovering a myriad of gender-related research questions. Traditionally, this has been automatically computed by gender detection tools (GDTs), which now face new industry players in the form of conversational bots like ChatGPT. This paper statistically tests the stability and performance of ChatGPT 3.5 Turbo and ChatGPT 4o for gender detection. It also compares two of the most used GDTs (Namsor and Gender-API) with ChatGPT using a dataset of 5,779 records compiled from previous studies for the most challenging variant, which is the gender inference from full name without providing any additional information. Results statistically show that ChatGPT is very stable presenting low standard deviation and tight confidence intervals for the same input, while it presents small differences in performance when prompt changes. ChatGPT slightly outperforms the other tools with an overall accuracy over 96%, although the difference is around 3% with both GDTs. When the probability returned by GDTs is factored in, differences get narrower and comparable in terms of inter-coder reliability and error coded. ChatGPT stands out in the reduced number of non-classifications (0% in most tests), which in combination with the other metrics analyzed, results in a solid alternative for gender inference. This paper contributes to current literature on gender detection classification from names by testing the stability and performance of the most used state-of-the-art AI tool, suggesting that the generative language model of ChatGPT provides a robust alternative to traditional gender application programming interfaces (APIs), yet GDTs (especially Namsor) should be considered for research-oriented purposes.

References
1.
McHugh M . Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012; 22(3):276-82. PMC: 3900052. View

2.
Filardo G, da Graca B, Sass D, Pollock B, Smith E, Martinez M . Trends and comparison of female first authorship in high impact medical journals: observational study (1994-2014). BMJ. 2016; 352:i847. PMC: 4775869. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i847. View

3.
VanHelene A, Khatri I, Hilton C, Mishra S, Gamsiz Uzun E, Warner J . Inferring gender from first names: Comparing the accuracy of Genderize, Gender API, and the gender R package on authors of diverse nationality. PLOS Digit Health. 2024; 3(10):e0000456. PMC: 11521266. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000456. View

4.
Astegiano J, Sebastian-Gonzalez E, de Toledo Castanho C . Unravelling the gender productivity gap in science: a meta-analytical review. R Soc Open Sci. 2019; 6(6):181566. PMC: 6599789. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.181566. View

5.
Holman L, Stuart-Fox D, Hauser C . The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented?. PLoS Biol. 2018; 16(4):e2004956. PMC: 5908072. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2004956. View