arXiv preprint ·
Inter-Rater Reliability of LLM and Rule-Based Annotation for Inferential Narrative Features: Three Studies on a Turkish Corpus
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Datasets that ship automatically generated feature annotations invite a question rarely asked of them: would a human agree with those labels? This report answers that for the Objective Projection corpus, a Turkish narrative dataset whose scenes carry a per-scene applied_rules field from a rule-based detector over six craft features -- two prohibitions (emotion labelling, simile) and four positive techniques (materialized metaphor, micro-focus, temporal anchor, atmosphere contradiction). Three studies are reported. Study 1 ($n = 120$) scores the detector against blind labels from the scheme's own author. Study 2 ($n = 100$, a disjoint scene set) scores the detector plus Gemini 2.5 Flash and Grok against an independent non-expert rater whose labels were locked before any machine ran. Study 2b re-runs the identical protocol with Claude Fable 5 (High) and ChatGPT 5.5. The central result concerns one rule. On materialized metaphor -- closest to the methodology's theoretical core -- the five machine labellers returned positive rates of $0$, $1$, $40$, $72$ and $78$ out of $100$ scenes, against a human count of $9$. Cohen's $κ$ was at or indistinguishable from chance for five of six labellers, across both human references and both scene sets: $0.004$, $0.015$, $0.000$, $0.019$, $0.027$. Raw agreement ranged from $74.7\%$ to $84.5\%$, an artefact of class imbalance rather than a sign of competence. We deliberately do not resolve this into a single story. Two readings survive: the feature is genuinely inferential and beyond current automatic detection, or the rule's definition is not yet operational enough for any rater to apply consistently -- including the human. Distinguishing them needs a second independent human rater, which this report does not have and therefore does not claim.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computation & Language / NLP
The University of Melbourne WMT 2026 CreoleMT Submission: A Domain-Balanced Approach to Low-Resource Pacific Creole Machine Translation
Learning to Refer from Estimated Listener Gaze
An Efficient and Modular Framework for Targeted Harm Mitigation in LLMS
Corpus Characterization and Inverse Constitutional Fine-Tuning for Style-Aware Radiology Reports
FaithfulBench: Does AI Counsel Uphold or Undermine the User's Professed Faith?
Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.