Good Books are Complex Matters: Gauging Complexity Profiles Across Diverse Categories of Perceived Literary Quality

In this study, we employ a classification approach to show that different categories of literary "quality" display unique linguistic profiles, leveraging a corpus that encompasses titles from the Norton Anthology, Penguin Classics series, and the Open Syllabus project, contrasted against contemporary bestsellers, Nobel prize winners and recipients of prestigious literary awards. Our analysis reveals that canonical and so called high-brow texts exhibit distinct textual features when compared to other quality categories such as bestsellers and popular titles as well as to control groups, likely responding to distinct (but not mutually exclusive) models of quality. We apply a classic machine learning approach, namely Random Forest, to distinguish quality novels from "control groups", achieving up to 77\% F1 scores in differentiating between the categories. We find that quality category tend to be easier to distinguish from control groups than from other quality categories, suggesting than literary quality features might be distinguishable but shared through quality proxies.

Chatbots Are Not Reliable Text Annotators

Recent research highlights the significant potential of ChatGPT for text annotation in social science research. However, ChatGPT is a closed-source product which has major drawbacks with regards to transparency, reproducibility, cost, and data protection. Recent advances in open-source (OS) large language models (LLMs) offer alternatives which remedy these challenges. This means that it is important to evaluate the performance of OS LLMs relative to ChatGPT and standard approaches to supervised machine learning classification. We conduct a systematic comparative evaluation of the performance of a range of OS LLM models alongside ChatGPT, using both zero- and few-shot learning as well as generic and custom prompts, with results compared to more traditional supervised classification models. Using a new dataset of Tweets from US news media, and focusing on simple binary text annotation tasks for standard social science concepts, we find significant variation in the performance of ChatGPT and OS models across the tasks, and that supervised classifiers consistently outperform both. Given the unreliable performance of ChatGPT and the significant challenges it poses to Open Science we advise against using ChatGPT for substantive text annotation tasks in social science research.