Diary analysis presents challenges, particularly in extracting meaningful information from large corpora, where traditional methods often fail to deliver satisfactory results. This study introduces a novel method based on Large Language Models (LLMs) to identify and cluster the various purposes of diary writing. By “purposes,” we refer to the intentions behind diary writing, such as documenting life events, self-reflection, or practicing language skills. Our approach is applied to Soviet-era diaries (1922–1929) from the Prozhito digital archive, a rich collection of personal narratives. We evaluate different proprietary and open-source LLMs, finding that GPT-4o and o1-mini achieve the best performance, while a template-based baseline is significantly less effective. Additionally, we analyze the retrieved purposes based on gender, age of the authors, and the year of writing. Furthermore, we examine the types of errors made by the models, providing a deeper understanding of their limitations and potential areas for improvement in future research.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Do LLMs Understand Why We Write Diaries? A Method for Purpose Extraction and Clustering

  • Valeriya Goloviznina,
  • Alexander Sergeev,
  • Mikhail Melnichenko,
  • Evgeny Kotelnikov

摘要

Diary analysis presents challenges, particularly in extracting meaningful information from large corpora, where traditional methods often fail to deliver satisfactory results. This study introduces a novel method based on Large Language Models (LLMs) to identify and cluster the various purposes of diary writing. By “purposes,” we refer to the intentions behind diary writing, such as documenting life events, self-reflection, or practicing language skills. Our approach is applied to Soviet-era diaries (1922–1929) from the Prozhito digital archive, a rich collection of personal narratives. We evaluate different proprietary and open-source LLMs, finding that GPT-4o and o1-mini achieve the best performance, while a template-based baseline is significantly less effective. Additionally, we analyze the retrieved purposes based on gender, age of the authors, and the year of writing. Furthermore, we examine the types of errors made by the models, providing a deeper understanding of their limitations and potential areas for improvement in future research.