Story Morals: Surfacing value-driven narrative schemas using large language models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stories are not only designed to entertain but encode lessons reflecting their authors' beliefs about the world. In this paper, we propose a new task of narrative schema labelling based on the concept of ``story morals'' to identify the values and lessons conveyed in stories. Using large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4, we develop methods to automatically extract and validate story morals across a diverse set of narrative genres, including folktales, novels, movies and TV, personal stories from social media and the news. Our approach involves a multi-step prompting sequence to derive morals and validate them through both automated metrics and human assessments. The findings suggest that LLMs can effectively approximate human story moral interpretations and offer a new avenue for computational narrative understanding. By clustering the extracted morals on a sample dataset of folktales from around the world, we highlight the commonalities and distinctiveness of narrative values, providing preliminary insights into the distribution of values across cultures. This work opens up new possibilities for studying narrative schemas and their role in shaping human beliefs and behaviors.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".