Inter-Rater Reliability of LLM and Rule-Based Annotation for Inferential Narrative Features: Three Studies on a Turkish Corpus

Counts differ because each database indexes a different set of publications. We treat OpenAlex as the canonical count; Google Scholar is not shown (no API, and crawling it violates its ToS).

Datasets that ship automatically generated feature annotations invite a question rarely asked of them: would a human agree with those labels? This report answers that for the Objective Projection corpus, a Turkish narrative dataset whose scenes carry a per-scene applied_rules field from a rule-based detector over six craft features -- two prohibitions (emotion labelling, simile) and four positive techniques (materialized metaphor, micro-focus, temporal anchor, atmosphere contradiction). Three studies are reported. Study 1 ($n = 120$) scores the detector against blind labels from the scheme's own author. Study 2 ($n = 100$, a disjoint scene set) scores the detector plus Gemini 2.5 Flash and Grok against an independent non-expert rater whose labels were locked before any machine ran. Study 2b re-runs the identical protocol with Claude Fable 5 (High) and ChatGPT 5.5. The central result concerns one rule. On materialized metaphor -- closest to the methodology's theoretical core -- the five machine labellers returned positive rates of $0$, $1$, $40$, $72$ and $78$ out of $100$ scenes, against a human count of $9$. Cohen's $κ$ was at or indistinguishable from chance for five of six labellers, across both human references and both scene sets: $0.004$, $0.015$, $0.000$, $0.019$, $0.027$. Raw agreement ranged from $74.7\%$ to $84.5\%$, an artefact of class imbalance rather than a sign of competence. We deliberately do not resolve this into a single story. Two readings survive: the feature is genuinely inferential and beyond current automatic detection, or the rule's definition is not yet operational enough for any rater to apply consistently -- including the human. Distinguishing them needs a second independent human rater, which this report does not have and therefore does not claim.