Event segmentation applications in large language model enabled automated recall assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding how individuals perceive and recall information in their natural environments is critical to understanding potential failures in perception (e.g., sensory loss) and memory (e.g., dementia). Event segmentation, the process of identifying distinct events within dynamic environments, is central to how we perceive, encode, and recall experiences. This cognitive process not only influences moment-to-moment comprehension but also shapes event specific memory. Despite the importance of event segmentation and event memory, current research methodologies rely heavily on human judgements for assessing segmentation patterns and recall ability, which are subjective and time-consuming. A few approaches have been introduced to automate event segmentation and recall scoring, but validity with human responses and ease of implementation require further advancements. To address these concerns, we leverage Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate event segmentation and assess recall of written narratives, employing chat completion and text-embedding models, respectively. We validated these models against human annotations and determined that LLMs can accurately identify event boundaries, and that human event segmentation is more consistent with LLMs than among humans themselves. Using this framework, we advanced an automated approach for recall assessments which revealed semantic similarity between segmented narrative events and participant recall can estimate recall performance. Our findings demonstrate that LLMs can effectively simulate human segmentation patterns and provide recall evaluations that are a scalable alternative to manual scoring. This research opens avenues for studying the intersection between perception, memory, and cognitive impairment using methodologies driven by artificial intelligence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".