Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Measuring Social Integration Through Participation: Categorizing Organizations and Leisure Activities in the Displaced Karelians Interview Archive using LLMs

Joonatan Laato, Veera Schroderus, Jenna Kanerva, Jenni Kauppi, Virpi Lummaa, Filip Ginter · Feb 17, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

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

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Digitized historical archives make it possible to study everyday social life on a large scale, but the information extracted directly from text often does not directly allow one to answer the research questions posed by historians or sociologists in a quantitative manner. We address this problem in a large collection of Finnish World War II Karelian evacuee family interviews. Prior work extracted more than 350K mentions of leisure time activities and organizational memberships from these interviews, yielding 71K unique activity and organization names -- far too many to analyze directly. We develop a categorization framework that captures key aspects of participation (the kind of activity/organization, how social it typically is, how regularly it happens, and how physically demanding it is). We annotate a gold-standard set to allow for a reliable evaluation, and then test whether large language models can apply the same schema at scale. Using a simple voting approach across multiple model runs, we find that an open-weight LLM can closely match expert judgments. Finally, we apply the method to label the 350K entities, producing a structured resource for downstream studies of social integration and related outcomes.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
  • The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
  • The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

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.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

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

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

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

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

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.

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

Rater Population

partial

Domain Experts

Helpful for staffing comparability.

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Domain Experts
  • Unit of annotation: Unknown
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

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

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

We develop a categorization framework that captures key aspects of participation (the kind of activity/organization, how social it typically is, how regularly it happens, and how physically demanding it is). HFEPX protocol signal is limited in abstract-level metadata, so treat it as adjacent context. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Apr 13, 2026, 10:18 AM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • We develop a categorization framework that captures key aspects of participation (the kind of activity/organization, how social it typically is, how regularly it happens, and how…
  • We annotate a gold-standard set to allow for a reliable evaluation, and then test whether large language models can apply the same schema at scale.

Researcher Actions

  • Treat this as method context, then pivot to protocol-specific HFEPX hubs.
  • Identify benchmark choices from full text before operationalizing conclusions.
  • Verify metric definitions before comparing against your eval pipeline.

Caveats

  • Generated from title, abstract, and extracted metadata only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Low-signal flag detected: protocol relevance may be indirect.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We develop a categorization framework that captures key aspects of participation (the kind of activity/organization, how social it typically is, how regularly it happens, and how physically demanding it is).
  • We annotate a gold-standard set to allow for a reliable evaluation, and then test whether large language models can apply the same schema at scale.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • We annotate a gold-standard set to allow for a reliable evaluation, and then test whether large language models can apply the same schema at scale.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Create Account & Post a Job
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
Learn About Managed Service
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.
Join Now