Improving Automatic Quotation Attribution in Literary Novels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current models for quotation attribution in literary novels assume varying levels of available information in their training and test data, which poses a challenge for in-the-wild inference. Here, we approach quotation attribution as a set of four interconnected sub-tasks: character identification, coreference resolution, quotation identification, and speaker attribution. We benchmark state-of-the-art models on each of these sub-tasks independently, using a large dataset of annotated coreferences and quotations in literary novels (the Project Dialogism Novel Corpus). We also train and evaluate models for the speaker attribution task in particular, showing that a simple sequential prediction model achieves accuracy scores on par with state-of-the-art models. <iframe src="https://app.sli.do/event/iHwnn5G9xYwcAmSbeKA4Au/embed/polls/335476ff-6655-40a8-9240-4716d923475c" width="300" height="400"></iframe>
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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; 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".