Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Structuralist Approach to AI Literary Criticism: Leveraging Greimas Semiotic Square for Large Language Models

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that imposing a Greimas semiotic square on LLM prompting yields literary criticism that outperforms professional human critics on a five-dimension rubric.

desk verdict The GLASS framework and dataset are a real contribution, but the claim that they outperform professional critics rests on an unvalidated LLM-as-a-judge evaluation and should not be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21360 v1 pith:A7HKZQWI submitted 2025-06-26 cs.CL

Fangzhou Dong , Yifan Zeng , Yingpeng Sang , Hong Shen This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords GreimassemioticsquareliterarycriticismlargelanguagemodelsLLM-as-a-judgechain-of-thoughtpromptingfew-shotnarrativestructurestructuralistanalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces GLASS, a prompting framework that forces large language models to analyze narrative works through the Greimas semiotic square, a four-position structure of oppositions and negations. Its central claim is that this structured scaffold cures the shallowness of unassisted LLM criticism and produces analyses that, on a new five-dimension rubric scored by four LLM judges, rank at or above published human expert criticism in 34 of 40 comparisons. The authors also contribute the first dataset of semiotic-square literary analyses, with 39 framework-generated analyses and 10 from scholars, and use it for few-shot prompting. If the claim holds, literary scholars gain a reproducible tool for structuralist reading, and the semiotic square becomes a concrete probe for how an AI reader organizes narrative meaning.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Greimas semiotic square, a four-term matrix in which a core term X opposes anti-X, and the negated positions non-X and non-anti-X contradict those terms without being direct opposites. The mechanism that carries the argument is the GLASS prompt formula $\text{Prompt}_i = [K_i, C_i, I_i, x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_n]$: a generated-knowledge summary K, a role context C, a chain-of-thought instruction I, and few-shot examples from the new dataset. This formula forces the model to commit to a core opposition, extend it to both negated corners, and justify each relation, so the final criticism is a single coherent structural argument rather than a list of themes. The second load-bearing device is QEMG, the LLM-as-a-judge rubric that converts comparative quality into weighted scores.

What would settle it

Have human literary critics blindly score the same de-identified outputs from GLASS and from human scholars using the same five-dimension rubric; if critics do not rank GLASS above the human analyses in a majority of the ten works, the reported superiority is an artifact of LLM-as-a-judge bias.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that an explicit semiotic structure, not more data or larger models, is what moves LLM literary criticism from generic paraphrase to theory-driven interpretation. GLASS first has one model generate a summary of the work as grounding knowledge, then directs a second model to adopt the role of a structuralist critic and fill in the square step by step: X and anti-X as the core contrary pair, then non-X and non-anti-X as their negations, with explanations of the relations among them and a final synthesis. The outputs are scored by QEMG, a rubric with weights for core opposition identification, extension of oppositions, completeness and logicality, textual detail, and innovation. Across ten classic works and four judge LLMs, GLASS outputs score higher than the human scholar analyses in 29 of 40 comparisons and at least as high in 34, which the paper reads as demonstrating superiority in accuracy, completeness, logic, and inspiration.

Load-bearing premise

The headline result assumes that the four LLM judges' weighted rubric scores are a fair and unbiased measure of what makes literary criticism good, rather than rewarding the framework's distinctive format.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any narrative work, novel or film, can be fed through GLASS with prompting alone, so the method extends to works that have never received semiotic-square criticism.
  • The released dataset of semiotic-square analyses becomes a reusable few-shot resource that other researchers can plug into prompts without fine-tuning.
  • QEMG provides an automated, reproducible scoring protocol, replacing slow and variable human evaluation for this style of criticism.
  • Because the framework foregrounds logical oppositions rather than cultural context, it is designed to be less sensitive to a model's background knowledge gaps.
  • Across the ten tested works, the framework's outputs match or beat the human-expert baseline in a large majority of judge-model comparisons.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the result is not an artifact of judge bias, the square is acting as a cognitive constraint that organizes generation; a natural next experiment is to test blind human critics against the same outputs, which would separate genuine critical quality from rubric conformity.
  • The same constrained-generation recipe could be ported to other literary theories whose core is a fixed relational structure, such as actantial models or Proppian function sequences, turning each theory into a prompt-level probe.
  • One risk the paper leaves implicit: the 39 machine-generated dataset entries were created by the same framework being evaluated, so using them as few-shot examples may anchor the judge models to the framework's own conventions; a cleaner test would use only the 10 human analyses for prompting.
  • Applied to pedagogy, the framework could give students a visible reason trail for an interpretation, but it also raises a question about whether such structured reading overfits to binary oppositions at the expense of ambiguity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes GLASS, a prompting framework that applies Greimas's semiotic square to steer LLMs toward structured literary criticism. The authors introduce a dataset of 49 analyses (39 generated by their framework and 10 extracted from published scholarly criticism), a quantitative evaluation metric called QEMG that uses LLM-as-a-judge scoring, a case study on Journey to the West, and applications to 39 additional works. The central claim is that GLASS-assisted LLM output outperforms professional literary scholars on accuracy, completeness, logic, and inspiration, based on the QEMG comparisons in Table 2.

Significance. If the comparative claim were supported, the paper would offer a useful, reusable prompt structure for bringing structuralist theory into LLM-based literary analysis, and the dataset would be a novel resource for the digital humanities. The authors should be credited for making the framework and dataset available, for providing concrete prompt components in equation (1), and for grounding the approach in the Greimasian literature. However, the significance is currently conditional: the headline result rests entirely on an unvalidated LLM-as-a-judge protocol, and parts of the evaluation are self-referential because the judge and the few-shot examples come from the same framework. The framework itself may well be useful, but the manuscript as written does not establish the claimed superiority over human experts.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results and Analysis (Table 2)] The claim that GLASS 'outperforms professional literary scholars in accuracy, completeness, logic, and inspiration' is supported only by QEMG scores assigned by four LLM judges. The paper reports no validation of these scores against human literary scholars, no inter-annotator agreement among the judge LLMs, no error bars or variance over repeated runs, and no significance tests. The raw numbers in Table 2 are also mixed (for example, Kimi gives Agamemnon 90 for the framework vs. 83 for the scholar, while GPT-4o gives 91 vs. 92; several cells show ties or the scholar scoring higher), yet the text states the framework 'demonstrated significantly higher quality' and cites the aggregate 72.5% figure as if it were decisive. As reported, the comparison cannot bear the headline conclusion.
  2. [Proposed Dataset and Quantitative Evaluation of GLASS] The evaluation is partially circular: 39 of the 49 dataset entries were generated by GLASS itself and then used as few-shot examples in the prompt structure of equation (1), and the QEMG rubric in Table 1 awards 70 of 100 points to dimensions tied directly to the semiotic-square format (Core Binary Opposition, Extension of Oppositional Relationships, Completeness and Logicality of the Square). The human expert texts were 'collected and formatted' from published essays that were not written to this template. It is therefore plausible that the judges reward the framework's own output format rather than the quality of the underlying criticism. The paper also does not compare against an LLM baseline without GLASS, so the results cannot isolate the framework's contribution from the raw capability of the LLM.
  3. [Table 1 and QEMG metric definition] The QEMG metric is introduced as a 'standardized' evaluation, but its validity as a measure of literary criticism quality is not established. The rubric weights are proposed without justification, the scoring ranges referred to in the text (e.g., 'preset scoring ranges, e.g., 20–25') are not operationalized in the table, and no evidence is given that these dimensions or weights match what literary critics would regard as quality. Because the same rubric is used both to motivate the framework's output structure and to grade it, the 'outperforms human experts' claim is at risk of being an artifact of the measurement instrument. A validation study with human expert ratings on the same corpus would be needed before Table 2 can support the paper's central claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Contributions] The abstract states the dataset features 'detailed analyses of 48 works,' while the Contributions section and the Proposed Dataset section say 49 narrative works; this inconsistency should be corrected.
  2. [Results and Analysis] The text mentions 'OEMG evaluation metrics,' which appears to be a typo for QEMG; the acronym should be consistent throughout.
  3. [Table 2] The table caption refers to 'red arrow' notation, but the rendered table uses arrows and superscripts whose direction is not self-explanatory in black-and-white; define the symbols explicitly and ensure the printed table is legible.
  4. [Quantitative Evaluation of GLASS] The sentence 'Detailed scoring guidelines and prompts are openly accessible' is not accompanied by a URL or appendix; without the exact judge prompts and scoring instructions, the QEMG results are not reproducible.
  5. [Proposed Framework GLASS] Equation (1) defines Prompti = [Ki, Ci, Ii, x1, x2, ..., xn] but does not specify how n (the number of few-shot examples) was chosen or whether it varied across works; this detail is needed for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline 'outperforms professional scholars' result rests on a QEMG rubric that rewards GLASS's own output structure, making the quantitative comparison partially self-referential.

  1. self definitional [Quantitative Evaluation of GLASS (Table 1), Results and Analysis (Table 2), and Contributions]
    "The QEMG (in Table 1) systematically evaluates GSS-based literary analyses through 5 key dimensions: Core Binary Opposition Identification (0–25): Accuracy in identifying core contradictions. Oppositional Relationship Extension (0–25): Depth in expanding/reconciling binary oppositions. Semiotic Square Completeness (0–20): Logical coherence and structural integrity."

    GLASS's prompt forces exactly this structure: Step 1 lists X vs. anti-X, Step 2 lists non-X, Step 3 lists non-anti-X, each with relationship explanations. The three highest-weighted rubric dimensions (70 of 100 points) score those template components. Human expert criticisms, by contrast, are 'collected and formatted' from papers not written to this step template, so their lower scores reflect format mismatch rather than inferior criticism. The Contributions claim that 'our framework outperforms professional literary scholars' therefore rests on a metric defined from the framework's own output format and scored by unvalidated LLM judges; the headline result is partly self-referential rather than an independent quality measure.

full rationale

The core GLASS construction is not circular: it is a prompt-based application of Greimas's semiotic square, with a case study compared qualitatively to authoritative scholarship and a dataset mixing human expert analyses with framework-generated entries. The circularity enters at the quantitative evaluation stage. QEMG's rubric is explicitly built around the semiotic-square components that GLASS is instructed to emit, and the comparison in Table 2 uses four LLM judges with no reported human-rated calibration, inter-annotator agreement, or significance testing. Consequently, the paper's central quantitative claim—that GLASS outperforms professional literary scholars—reduces in large part to the framework being graded on its own output schema. This is a partial but real self-definitional loop: the framework itself has independent content, but the 'outperforms scholars' result is substantially an artifact of the evaluation metric. The unavailability of the detailed scoring prompts further limits verification.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on assumptions about the validity of Greimas structuralism, the reliability of LLM judges, and the comparability of human excerpts versus LLM outputs. Apart from hand-chosen rubric weights and an unreported few-shot count, there are no numerically fitted parameters. No new physical or formal entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • QEMG rubric dimension weights = Core opposition 25, extension 25, completeness 20, textual detail 15, innovation 15
    Hand-chosen weights in Table 1 define the total scores that drive the 'outperforms scholars' claim; no sensitivity analysis is reported, and different weights could change per-work rankings.
  • few-shot example count n = not specified in text
    Prompt formula (1) uses n examples {x1...xn}; the value is not reported, and it affects output quality and evaluation scores.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Greimas semiotic square is a valid tool for uncovering deep narrative meaning.
    Used throughout as the analytical core; the paper does not defend this against competing critical frameworks, only cites Greimas (1987).
  • domain assumption LLM-as-judge scores are valid measures of literary criticism quality and are comparable across human and LLM outputs.
    QEMG uses four LLMs as judges (Section Quantitative Evaluation) with no human validation; if judges are biased toward LLM style, the central comparison fails.
  • domain assumption Few-shot prompting and chain-of-thought improve LLM literary analysis performance.
    Adopted in GLASS based on prior work (Liu et al. 2022; Feng et al. 2024), but no in-paper ablation establishes the improvement for this task.
  • domain assumption The expert excerpts extracted from published papers are representative full literary criticisms comparable to GLASS outputs.
    The Quantitative Evaluation section compares against 'professional insights extracted' from papers; truncated extractions may disadvantage human criticism.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Structuralist Approach to AI Literary Criticism: Leveraging Greimas Semiotic Square for Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A7HKZQWI

@misc{pith2026250621360,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Structuralist Approach to AI Literary Criticism: Leveraging Greimas Semiotic Square for Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A7HKZQWI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21360}
}
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in understanding and generating text but struggle with providing professional literary criticism for works with profound thoughts and complex narratives. This paper proposes GLASS (Greimas Literary Analysis via Semiotic Square), a structured analytical framework based on Greimas Semiotic Square (GSS), to enhance LLMs' ability to conduct in-depth literary analysis. GLASS facilitates the rapid dissection of narrative structures and deep meanings in narrative works. We propose the first dataset for GSS-based literary criticism, featuring detailed analyses of 48 works. Then we propose quantitative metrics for GSS-based literary criticism using the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm. Our framework's results, compared with expert criticism across multiple works and LLMs, show high performance. Finally, we applied GLASS to 39 classic works, producing original and high-quality analyses that address existing research gaps. This research provides an AI-based tool for literary research and education, offering insights into the cognitive mechanisms underlying literary engagement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21360 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of Greimas semiotic square. the deep structure hidden beneath the surface structure, and establishes a relatively complete narrative theory. Greimas believed that meaning can only be generated through the op￾position of semes (Greimas, 1987). Specifically, the semiotic square analysis process is as fol￾lows: Establish a term X, its opposite is anti-X. Beyond this, there is non-X, which contradicts X but is n… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The GLASS framework diagram illustrates LLM-based literary work analysis of Hemingway’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Greimas semiotic square of part of our proposed dataset. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A sample of White Deer Plain in our proposed dataset. Using the (Key:Value) prompt format, along with CoT, can improve the performance of LLMs. dred Years of Solitude, War and Peace, The Hunchback of Notre-Dame, Robinson Crusoe, The Little Prince, Hamlet, Don Quixote, …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Our proposed GLASS framework output: Greimas [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline " cite write " FUNCTION editor.postfix editor num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION editor.trans.postfix editor num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION trans.postfix translator num.names #1 > "( )" "( )" if FUNCTION authors.editors.reflist.apa5 'field := 'dot := field num.names 'numnames := numnames 'format.num.names := format.num.names na...

  2. [2]

    APACrefauthors \ 2014

    LeviStrauss APACrefauthors Badcock, C R. APACrefauthors \ 2014 . Levi-strauss (rle social theory): structuralism and sociological theory Levi-strauss (rle social theory): structuralism and sociological theory . Routledge

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    \ Duisit, L

    Barthes APACrefauthors Barthes, R. \ Duisit, L. APACrefauthors \ 1975 . An introduction to the structural analysis of narrative An introduction to the structural analysis of narrative . New literary history 6 2 237--272

    work page 1975

  4. [4]

    , Holtzman, A

    LLMjuxian APACrefauthors Bisk, Y. , Holtzman, A. , Thomason, J. , Andreas, J. , Bengio, Y. , Chai, J. Turian, J. APACrefauthors \ 2020 . Experience grounds language Experience grounds language . Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) Proceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural ...

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    , Clarke, H

    CogLiterary APACrefauthors Citron, F. , Clarke, H. , Liao, Q. \ Rasse, C. APACrefauthors \ 2020 . The role of literary metaphors in aesthetic appreciation. The role of literary metaphors in aesthetic appreciation. CogSci. Cogsci

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    APACrefauthors \ 2007

    Structuralism APACrefauthors Culler, J. APACrefauthors \ 2007 . On deconstruction: Theory and criticism after structuralism On deconstruction: Theory and criticism after structuralism . Cornell University Press

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    APACrefauthors \ 2012

    LiteraryTheroy APACrefauthors Dinurriyah, I S. APACrefauthors \ 2012 . Theory of Literature: an Introduction Theory of literature: an introduction . A Handbook For English Department Undergraduate Students Faculty of Letters and Humanities UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya. Surabaya: UIN Sunan Ampel Surabaya

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    APACrefauthors \ 2006

    Marxism APACrefauthors Eagleton, T. APACrefauthors \ 2006 . Criticism and ideology: A study in Marxist literary theory Criticism and ideology: A study in marxist literary theory . Verso

    work page 2006

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    APACrefauthors \ 2008

    LiteraryCritism APACrefauthors Eagleton, T. APACrefauthors \ 2008 . Literary theory: An introduction Literary theory: An introduction \ ( 3rd \ ). Oxford, UK John Wiley & Sons

    2008

  2. [10]

    , Zhang, B

    CoT APACrefauthors Feng, G. , Zhang, B. , Gu, Y. , Ye, H. , He, D. \ Wang, L. APACrefauthors \ 2024 . Towards revealing the mystery behind chain of thought: a theoretical perspective Towards revealing the mystery behind chain of thought: a theoretical perspective . Advances in...

    2024

  3. [11]

    , Fisch, A

    few-shot2 APACrefauthors Gao, T. , Fisch, A. \ Chen, D. APACrefauthors \ 2020 . Making pre-trained language models better few-shot learners Making pre-trained language models better few-shot learners . arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.15723

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    APACrefauthors \ 1971

    GremiasStructure APACrefauthors Greimas, A J. APACrefauthors \ 1971 . Strukturale semantik Strukturale semantik . Springer

    1971

  5. [13]

    APACrefauthors \ 1987

    GremiasOnMeaning APACrefauthors Greimas, A J. APACrefauthors \ 1987 . On meaning: Selected writings in semiotic theory On meaning: Selected writings in semiotic theory \ (P J. Perron\ F H. Collins, ). Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press

    1987

  6. [14]

    , Gottschling, S

    LLMgenpoem APACrefauthors Gunser, V E. , Gottschling, S. , Brucker, B. , Richter, S. , C akir, D. \ Gerjets, P. APACrefauthors \ 2022 . The pure poet: How good is the subjective credibility and stylistic quality of literary short texts written with an artificial intelligence t...

    2022

  7. [15]

    APACrefauthors \ 2012

    White APACrefauthors Guo, C X. APACrefauthors \ 2012 . A Brief Discussion of White Deer Plain Under Greimas's Semiotic Square A brief discussion of white deer plain under greimas's semiotic square . Journal of Changjiang Normal University 28 05 123-125

    2012

  8. [16]

    Semiotic Square

    Jane APACrefauthors Guo, C X. APACrefauthors \ 2013 . Deep Narrative Structure of Jane Eyre from the Perspective of the "Semiotic Square" Deep narrative structure of jane eyre from the perspective of the "semiotic square" . Journal of Chongqing University of Science and Techno...

    2013 doi

  9. [17]

    , Sucholutsky, I

    LLMCog1 APACrefauthors Hardy, M. , Sucholutsky, I. , Thompson, B. \ Griffiths, T. APACrefauthors \ 2023 . Large language models meet cognitive science: LLMs as tools, models, and participants Large language models meet cognitive science: Llms as tools, models, and participants...

    2023

  10. [18]

    APACrefauthors \ 2022

    zhu2022 APACrefauthors Hongbo, Z. APACrefauthors \ 2022 . Comprehensive Understanding of Journey to the West Comprehensive understanding of journey to the west . Beijing Zhonghua Book Company

    2022

  11. [19]

    APACrefauthors \ 2013

    Great APACrefauthors Huang, Y F. APACrefauthors \ 2013 . The American Dream in The Great Gatsby Viewed Through Semiotic Square Theory The american dream in the great gatsby viewed through semiotic square theory . Academic Theory 27 179-180+208

    2013

  12. [20]

    Semiotic Square

    Spirited APACrefauthors Huang, Z. APACrefauthors \ 2023 . Growth Pursuits in Big Fish & Begonia and Spirited Away Under Greimas's "Semiotic Square" Growth pursuits in big fish & begonia and spirited away under greimas's "semiotic square" . Delta 10 151-153

    2023

  13. [21]

    , Stamenkovi \'c , D

    GPT4Meto APACrefauthors Ichien, N. , Stamenkovi \'c , D. \ Holyoak, K. APACrefauthors \ 2024 . Interpretation of Novel Literary Metaphors by Humans and GPT-4 Interpretation of novel literary metaphors by humans and gpt-4 . Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Sci...

    2024

  14. [22]

    \ Darazsdi, Z

    CogLiter2 APACrefauthors Iricinschi, C. \ Darazsdi, Z. APACrefauthors \ 2020 . Openness to Fictional Experience: Measuring Readers' and Viewers' Narrative Absorption as a Function of Personality. Openness to fictional experience: Measuring readers' and viewers' narrative absor...

    2020

  15. [23]

    Christmas APACrefauthors Jin, X M. \ Xu, H. APACrefauthors \ 2015 . A Simple Analysis of the Narrative Structure of A Christmas Carol Under Greimas's Semiotic Square A simple analysis of the narrative structure of a christmas carol under greimas's semiotic square . Teaching in...

    2015

  16. [24]

    \ Rush, A M

    FewshotPrompt APACrefauthors Le Scao, T. \ Rush, A M. APACrefauthors \ 2021 . How many data points is a prompt worth? How many data points is a prompt worth? Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Huma...

    2021

  17. [25]

    Semiotic Square

    Agamemnon APACrefauthors Li, X L. APACrefauthors \ 2015 . Under the "Semiotic Square" Perspective: Agamemnon Under the "semiotic square" perspective: Agamemnon . Drama Home 04 28-29

    2015

  18. [26]

    , Liu, A

    GKP APACrefauthors Liu, J. , Liu, A. , Lu, X. , Welleck, S. , West, P. , Le Bras, R. Hajishirzi, H. APACrefauthors \ 2022 . Generated Knowledge Prompting for Commonsense Reasoning Generated knowledge prompting for commonsense reasoning . Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting ...

    2022

  19. [27]

    , Ryder, N

    few-shot1 APACrefauthors Mann, B. , Ryder, N. , Subbiah, M. , Kaplan, J. , Dhariwal, P. , Neelakantan, A. others APACrefauthors \ 2020 . Language models are few-shot learners Language models are few-shot learners . arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165 1

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    APACrefauthors \ 1981

    sa1981 APACrefauthors Mengwu, S. APACrefauthors \ 1981 . Journey to the West and Ancient Chinese Politics Journey to the west and ancient chinese politics . Beijing Zhonghua Book Company

    1981

  21. [29]

    APACrefauthors \ 2008

    Female APACrefauthors Moi, T. APACrefauthors \ 2008 . I am not a woman writer' About women, literature and feminist theory today I am not a woman writer' about women, literature and feminist theory today . Feminist theory 9 3 259--271

    2008

  22. [30]

    APACrefauthors \ 1989

    AJGreimas APACrefauthors Perron, P. APACrefauthors \ 1989 . Introduction: AJ Greimas Introduction: Aj greimas . New Literary History 20 3 523--538

    1989

  23. [31]

    , Al-Azary, H

    CogLiterary1 APACrefauthors Reid, J N. , Al-Azary, H. \ Katz, A N. APACrefauthors \ 2020 . Metaphors: Where the neighborhood in which one resides interacts with (interpretive) diversity. Metaphors: Where the neighborhood in which one resides interacts with (interpretive) diver...

    2020

  24. [32]

    , Sakai, H

    CogLiter3 APACrefauthors Sato, M. , Sakai, H. , Wu, J. \ Bergen, B. APACrefauthors \ 2012 . Towards a cognitive science of literary style: Perspective-taking in processing omniscient versus objective voice Towards a cognitive science of literary style: Perspective-taking in pr...

    2012

  25. [33]

    APACrefauthors \ 2017

    Gadamer APACrefauthors Schmidt, D J. APACrefauthors \ 2017 . Gadamer Gadamer . A Companion to Continental Philosophy 433--442

    2017

  26. [34]

    \ Bamman, D

    NewLiterary APACrefauthors Sims, M. \ Bamman, D. APACrefauthors \ 2020 . Measuring information propagation in literary social networks Measuring information propagation in literary social networks . Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Pr...

    2020

  27. [35]

    APACrefauthors \ 2022

    OldMan APACrefauthors Xue, R R. APACrefauthors \ 2022 . The Old Man and the Sea from the Perspective of Greimas's Semiotic Square The old man and the sea from the perspective of greimas's semiotic square . Contemporary Literature Creation 28 7-9 . APACrefDOI doi:10.20024/j.cnk...

    2022 doi

  28. [36]

    APACrefauthors \ 2018

    Trueman APACrefauthors Yang, F R. APACrefauthors \ 2018 . Unfreedom in Freedom: Analyzing the Film The Truman Show Through Greimas's Semiotic Square Unfreedom in freedom: Analyzing the film the truman show through greimas's semiotic square . Journal of Sichuan University of Ar...

    2018

  29. [37]

    APACrefauthors \ 2011

    Pride APACrefauthors Yang, K. APACrefauthors \ 2011 . A Preliminary Analysis of Pride and Prejudice Through Greimas's Semiotic Square Theory A preliminary analysis of pride and prejudice through greimas's semiotic square theory . Literary World (Theory Edition) 04 25-26

    2011

  30. [38]

    APACrefauthors \ 1600

    xie1600 APACrefauthors Zhaoyi, X. APACrefauthors \ 1600 . Sifting through the Literary Sea Sifting through the literary sea . In Journey to the West

  31. [39]

    , Chiang, W L

    JudgeAs APACrefauthors Zheng, L. , Chiang, W L. , Sheng, Y. , Zhuang, S. , Wu, Z. , Zhuang, Y. others APACrefauthors \ 2023 . Judging LLM-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena Judging LLM-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena . Advances in Neural Information Processi...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.