Measuring Social Integration Through Participation: Categorizing Organizations and Leisure Activities in the Displaced Karelians Interview Archive using LLMs
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.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: A single interview example with entities pertaining to the husband (yellow) and wife (blue) highlighted. Translated from Finnish, preserving typographic features of the original data. Note: Names and dates have been changed.
Top 10 Hobbies
handicrafts ( käsityöt ) — 31,780
fishing ( kalastus ) — 20,222
literature ( kirjallisuus ) — 13,128
gardening ( puutarhanhoito ) — 10,519
reading ( lukeminen ) — 9,324
hunting ( metsästys ) — 6,287
Table 1: Top 10 most frequently mentioned hobbies and organizations. Finnish terms in italics.
Figure 2: Distribution of hobby and organization mentions across entity ranks. Hobbies (red) show concentrated distribution in the first few mentions, with some 7.6k unique entities, while organizations (blue) show a long tail extending beyond 60k unique entities.
Q1 – Categories
Q2 – Group Size
Professional/Work
Alone
Cultural/Traditional
Small group
Religious/Spiritual
Large group
Sports/Physical activity
Non-definable
Creative/Artistic
Data error
Educational/Academic
Q3 – Regularity
Table 2: Questionnaire schema showing all options for each question in our final round of annotations.
Model
Avg F1
Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct
65.0
Qwen3-235B-A22B
68.2
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B
62.5
Meta-Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct
73.0
Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E
70.4
Mistral-Large-Instruct-2407
74.6
Table 3: Average F-scores of each model on the evaluation set (n=50).
Method
Schema
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Avg
Orig. prompt
Full
77.0
85.4
73.6
54.6
72.7
Best prompt
Full
78.2
85.8
71.7
55.9
72.9
7 prompt ens.
Coarse
80.0
87.7
76.8
62.7
76.8
7× orig. ens.
Coarse
76.9
87.4
79.9
60.0
76.1
7 prompt ens.
Full
80.0
85.0
71.4
58.9
73.7
7× orig. ens.
Full
76.9
85.9
75.3
55.0
73.3
Table 4: Performance of single-prompt methods, ensemble methods, and human annotators on test set (n=150) in full and simplified coarse label schema. All values are F-score.
Question
Multi-label %
Total
Labels
Q1 – Category
29.2%
17,717
18
Q2 – Group size
6.6%
4,014
3
Q3 – Frequency
1.8%
1,076
4
Q4 – Physical act.
2.5%
1,511
4
Table 5: Multi-label entity distribution across questions.
Q1 Category
n
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Creative/Artistic
33
93/95
85/91
90/94
51/87
Professional
27
77/88
91/96
70/81
63/77
Sports/Physical
24
82/93
81/89
72/85
76/90
Administrative
21
85/88
95/96
76/79
84/83
Nature-related
19
79/92
75/86
60/71
58/72
General social
12
75/88
92/97
47/82
0/65
Table 6: Q1–Q4 reliability conditioned by entity category in Q1, showing both model and human agreement rates. Format: Model% / Human%. Colors: ≥ 75% , 50–74% , < 50% (based on lower score).
Perfect agreement (0%)
19%
Low disag. (<25%)
44%
Moderate disag. (25–50%)
30%
High disag. (>50%)
7%
Table 7: Degrees of model–human disagreement.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Annotator Pair
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Average
Pairwise Cohen’s Kappa – Evaluation Set (n=50)
Annotator 1 vs 2
0.800
0.806
0.667
0.721
0.749
Annotator 1 vs 3
0.753
0.743
0.725
0.711
0.733
Annotator 1 vs 4
0.753
0.767
0.524
0.660
0.676
Annotator 2 vs 3
0.684
0.753
0.677
0.688
0.701
Annotator 2 vs 4
0.697
0.848
0.651
0.754
0.737
Appendix
Table 8: Inter-annotator agreement metrics across evaluation (n=50) and test (n=150) sets.
Q1 – Category
Q2 – Group Size
Label
n
%
Label
n
%
Administrative
11,844
19.5
Large group
53,574
88.3
Professional
10,830
17.9
Small group
4,889
8.1
General Social
7,744
12.8
Alone
4,840
8.0
Creative
7,396
12.2
Data error
853
1.4
Sports
7,328
12.1
Not definable
654
1.1
Appendix
Table 9: Distribution across 60,647 unique entities for all four questions.
Hobbies
Organizations
Total
Label
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Q2 – Group Size
Large group
55,252
12.9
198,318
96.1
253,570
39.9
Alone
186,679
43.4
512
0.2
187,191
29.4
Small group
174,877
40.7
4,104
2.0
178,981
28.1
Not definable
12,232
2.8
1,140
0.6
13,372
2.1
Appendix
Table 10: Mention-weighted distribution (355,648 total mentions) for Q2–Q4 by entity type.
Hobbies
Organizations
Total
Category
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Creative/Artistic
97,180
36.3
16,639
6.3
113,819
21.4
Nature-related
88,174
32.9
3,880
1.5
92,054
17.3
Sports/Physical
46,269
17.3
15,390
5.8
61,659
11.6
General Social Group
1,621
0.6
50,089
19.0
51,710
9.7
Professional/Work
1,811
0.7
32,344
12.3
34,155
6.4
Appendix
Table 11: Q1 category distribution weighted by mention frequency (355,648 total mentions).
Rank
Entity
Model Disagr
Human Disagr
1
Loimaa Co-op Bank ( Loimaan KOP )
100.0%
66.7%
2
Folk dance ( tanhu )
100.0%
50.7%
3
Poor relief fund ( Vaivaiskassa )
100.0%
66.7%
4
Military regiment abbr. ( 2.KKK/KKR )
91.7%
75.0%
5
Association abbr. ( KTV )
87.5%
25.0%
6
Summer cottage life ( kesämökkielämä )
79.2%
56.2%
Appendix
Table 12: Model and human disagreement over the 150 test set entities.
Record linkage and demographic inference from names are routine demands in social science. Most approaches to these problems require labeled training data that are difficult or costly to acquire. I show that pre-trained language models perform both tasks accurately without requiring task-specific training. For record linkage, I introduce EnsembleLink, an algorithm that uses pre-trained embeddings alongside string-based scorers to retrieve a short list of candidates and then identify the likeliest matches. EnsembleLink matches or exceeds the performance of most prior approaches while generalizing across scripts and formats that those methods are unable to handle. For ethnicity inference from names, I show that large language models (LLMs) achieve up to 83.8% accuracy on U.S. voter files, compared to 78.0% for name-supplemented BISG. Open-weight models offer reproducible implementations that approach these models in accuracy. Moreover, LLMs are able to infer group membership for religious, caste-based, and other ethnic group categories outside of the United States, and reduce bias in downstream estimates of geographic racial gaps. Where pre-training encodes the world knowledge required by each task, task-specific labels add less information.
Noah Dasanaike
PhD Candidate, Department of Government, Harvard University.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as proxies for computational social analysis, yet faithfully representing the "thick descriptions" (Geertz, 1973) of human communities remains a critical challenge. Current evaluations often reduce social identity to static labels, sidelining how real-world groups navigate social shifts. To bridge this gap, we introduce CARE (Community-Aware Reaction Evaluation), a reaction-centered framework that benchmarks LLM-simulated discourse against the authentic, event-contingent responses of distinct communities to real-world news. Spanning 207 Reddit communities and covering 9,947 authentic reactions towards 2,166 news articles, CARE evaluates leading LLMs using a hierarchical taxonomy covering coarse attitudes and fine-grained communicative tones. Our empirical findings expose two critical failure modes in prevailing community-conditioning paradigms. First, while community context and targeted reasoning significantly enhance macro-level attitudinal and tonal profiling, these gains largely collapse at the instance level when predicting reactions to specific events. Second, the benefits of community conditioning are remarkably uneven: prompting strategies yield non-uniform shifts, where fidelity gains in some communities are offset by performance drops in others. This micro-macro divergence and community-level instability demonstrate that standard conditioning enables models to approximate static baseline profiles without capturing dynamic or equitable event reactions, establishing CARE as an essential diagnostic tool for community-aware social simulation. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/nuankw/Handle_with_CARE.
Nuan Wen, Chanbin Lim, Xuezhe Ma
Information Sciences Institute University of Southern California
This study introduces a Large Language Model (LLM) scheme for generating key attributes of travel diaries in agent-based transportation models, including purpose, mode and distance, to assess the underlying viability of LLMs for activity generation tasks. While traditional approaches rely on large quantities of proprietary household travel surveys, our method generates personas stochastically from open-source American Community Survey (ACS) and Smart Location Database (SLD) data, then synthesizes diaries through direct prompting. Our study features a novel one-to-cohort realism score: a composite of four metrics (Trip Count Score, Interval Score, Purpose Score, and Mode Score) validated against the Connecticut Statewide Transportation Study (CSTS) diaries, matched across demographic variables. Our validation utilizes Jensen-Shannon Divergence to measure distributional similarities between generated and real diaries. When compared to diaries generated with classical methods (Negative Binomial for trip generation; Multinomial Logit for mode/purpose) calibrated on the validation set, LLM generated diaries achieve comparable overall realism (LLM mean: 0.692 vs. 0.628). The LLM excels in determining trip purpose, and its trip mode predictions demonstrate greater consistency (a narrower Realism Score distribution). Meanwhile, classical models lead to better numerical estimates of trip count and activity duration. Aggregate validation confirms the LLM's statistical representativeness (LLM mean: 0.779 vs. 0.706), demonstrating LLM's zero-shot viability and establishing a quantifiable metric of diary realism for future synthetic diary evaluation systems.