Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

Developing a Guideline for the Labovian-Structural Analysis of Oral Narratives in Japanese

Amane Watahiki, Tomoki Doi, Akari Kikuchi, Hiroshi Ohata +4 more

Published

Mar 31, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

15/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

45% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Mar 31, 2026

Open arXiv Find implementation Shortlist (0) RSS feed

Tags

Automatic Metrics

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

What to verify

Validate the exact study setup in the full paper before operational use.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Detected
Eval setup described
Usefulness for eval research
15/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here

Human Eval Papers LLM-as-Judge Papers Pairwise Preference Papers Tool-Use Evaluation Search

Abstract

Narrative analysis is a cornerstone of qualitative research. One leading approach is the Labovian model, but its application is labor-intensive, requiring a holistic, recursive interpretive process that moves back and forth between individual parts of the transcript and the transcript as a whole. Existing Labovian datasets are available only in English, which differs markedly from Japanese in terms of grammar and discourse conventions. To address this gap, we introduce the first systematic guidelines for Labovian narrative analysis of Japanese narrative data. Our guidelines retain all six Labovian categories and extend the framework by providing explicit rules for clause segmentation tailored to Japanese constructions. In addition, our guidelines cover a broader range of clause types and narrative types. Using these guidelines, annotators achieved high agreement in clause segmentation (Fleiss' kappa = 0.80) and moderate agreement in two structural classification tasks (Krippendorff's alpha = 0.41 and 0.45, respectively), one of which is slightly higher than that found in prior work despite the use of finer-grained distinctions. This paper describes the Labovian model, the proposed guidelines, the annotation process, and their utility. It concludes by discussing the challenges encountered during the annotation process and the prospects for developing a larger dataset for structural narrative analysis in Japanese qualitative research.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Narrative analysis is a cornerstone of qualitative research."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Narrative analysis is a cornerstone of qualitative research."

Quality Controls

partial

Inter Annotator Agreement Reported

Calibration/adjudication style controls detected.

"Narrative analysis is a cornerstone of qualitative research."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Narrative analysis is a cornerstone of qualitative research."

Reported Metrics

partial

Kappa, Krippendorff alpha, Agreement

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Using these guidelines, annotators achieved high agreement in clause segmentation (Fleiss' kappa = 0.80) and moderate agreement in two structural classification tasks (Krippendorff's alpha = 0.41 and 0.45, respectively), one of which is slightly higher than that found in prior work despite the use of finer-grained distinctions."

Benchmarks and datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported metrics

kappakrippendorff alphaagreement
Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
No
Feedback types
None
Rater population
Not reported
Expertise required
General
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
Automatic Metrics
Agentic eval
None
Quality controls
Inter Annotator Agreement Reported
Evidence quality
Low
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

Narrative analysis is a cornerstone of qualitative research.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • Narrative analysis is a cornerstone of qualitative research.
  • One leading approach is the Labovian model, but its application is labor-intensive, requiring a holistic, recursive interpretive process that moves back and forth between individual parts of the transcript and the transcript as a whole.
  • Existing Labovian datasets are available only in English, which differs markedly from Japanese in terms of grammar and discourse conventions.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Agreement / Kappa

Contribution summary

  • To address this gap, we introduce the first systematic guidelines for Labovian narrative analysis of Japanese narrative data.
  • Using these guidelines, annotators achieved high agreement in clause segmentation (Fleiss' kappa = 0.80) and moderate agreement in two structural classification tasks (Krippendorff's alpha = 0.41 and 0.45, respectively), one of which is…

Why it matters for eval

  • Using these guidelines, annotators achieved high agreement in clause segmentation (Fleiss' kappa = 0.80) and moderate agreement in two structural classification tasks (Krippendorff's alpha = 0.41 and 0.45, respectively), one of which is…

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Quality control reporting appears

    Detected: Inter Annotator Agreement Reported

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Metric reporting is present

    Detected: kappa, krippendorff alpha, agreement