How to predict creativity ratings from written narratives: A comparison of co-occurrence and textual forma mentis networks
Fuente:
arXiv
Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2026
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1866911368936947712 |
|---|---|
| author | Passaro, Roberto Haim, Edith Stella, Massimo |
| author_facet | Passaro, Roberto Haim, Edith Stella, Massimo |
| contents | This tutorial paper provides a step-by-step workflow for building and analysing semantic networks from short creative texts. We introduce and compare two widely used text-to-network approaches: word co-occurrence networks and textual forma mentis networks (TFMNs). We also demonstrate how they can be used in machine learning to predict human creativity ratings. Using a corpus of 1029 short stories, we guide readers through text preprocessing, network construction, feature extraction (structural measures, spreading-activation indices, and emotion scores), and application of regression models. We evaluate how network-construction choices influence both network topology and predictive performance. Across all modelling settings, TFMNs consistently outperformed co-occurrence networks through lower prediction errors (best MAE = 0.581 for TFMN, vs 0.592 for co-occurrence with window size 3). Network-structural features dominated predictive performance (MAE = 0.591 for TFMN), whereas emotion features performed worse (MAE = 0.711 for TFMN) and spreading-activation measures contributed little (MAE = 0.788 for TFMN). This paper offers practical guidance for researchers interested in applying network-based methods for cognitive fields like creativity research. we show when syntactic networks are preferable to surface co-occurrence models, and provide an open, reproducible workflow accessible to newcomers in the field, while also offering deeper methodological insight for experienced researchers. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2601_07327 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | How to predict creativity ratings from written narratives: A comparison of co-occurrence and textual forma mentis networks Passaro, Roberto Haim, Edith Stella, Massimo Computation and Language This tutorial paper provides a step-by-step workflow for building and analysing semantic networks from short creative texts. We introduce and compare two widely used text-to-network approaches: word co-occurrence networks and textual forma mentis networks (TFMNs). We also demonstrate how they can be used in machine learning to predict human creativity ratings. Using a corpus of 1029 short stories, we guide readers through text preprocessing, network construction, feature extraction (structural measures, spreading-activation indices, and emotion scores), and application of regression models. We evaluate how network-construction choices influence both network topology and predictive performance. Across all modelling settings, TFMNs consistently outperformed co-occurrence networks through lower prediction errors (best MAE = 0.581 for TFMN, vs 0.592 for co-occurrence with window size 3). Network-structural features dominated predictive performance (MAE = 0.591 for TFMN), whereas emotion features performed worse (MAE = 0.711 for TFMN) and spreading-activation measures contributed little (MAE = 0.788 for TFMN). This paper offers practical guidance for researchers interested in applying network-based methods for cognitive fields like creativity research. we show when syntactic networks are preferable to surface co-occurrence models, and provide an open, reproducible workflow accessible to newcomers in the field, while also offering deeper methodological insight for experienced researchers. |
| title | How to predict creativity ratings from written narratives: A comparison of co-occurrence and textual forma mentis networks |
| topic | Computation and Language |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.07327 |