Francesco Di Cursi

Francesco Di Cursi, Chiara Boldrini, Marco Conti et al.

Email archives offer a rare view of social relationships through repeated communication, but it remains unclear how well classical ego network layering applies to digital interaction data. This paper compares two public email archives with sharply contrasting structures: Enron, a workplace corpus involving around 150 users, and Jmail, a single-ego archive centered on an exceptionally active focal actor whose communication volume is more than twenty times higher than the average Enron user. We ask, in each case, whether Dunbar-like layered organization is recoverable from email communication frequency and how it should be interpreted. For Jmail, we show that extreme communication intensity causes standard layering methods (whether clustering-based or threshold-based) to break down. Jmail is not a broad communication environment with many occasional contacts, but a selective pool of high-interest alters operating on a much higher frequency scale than ordinary email. Once the Dunbar frequency ladder is anchored to the empirical support-clique boundary, a clearer layered structure emerges. Reciprocity analysis confirms that the recovered layers reflect genuine bidirectional relationships rather than artifacts of the focal actor's outgoing activity. Enron serves as a workplace benchmark that grounds the comparison: its ego networks partially reproduce Dunbar-like organization, with stable inner circles and an outermost recovered layer corresponding to Dunbar's affinity group ($\sim50$), confirming that layered structure is recoverable from ordinary organizational email. Overall, the findings show that Dunbar-like organization can be meaningfully studied in email archives, but that selective high-frequency archives require frequency normalization before the layered structure becomes interpretable.

Francesco Di Cursi, Chiara Boldrini, Marco Conti et al.

We evaluate large language models (LLMs) for automatic personality prediction from text under the binary Five Factor Model (BIG5). Five models -- including GPT-4 and lightweight open-source alternatives -- are tested across three heterogeneous datasets (Essays, MyPersonality, Pandora) and two prompting strategies (minimal vs. enriched with linguistic and psychological cues). Enriched prompts reduce invalid outputs and improve class balance, but also introduce a systematic bias toward predicting trait presence. Performance varies substantially: Openness and Agreeableness are relatively easier to detect, while Extraversion and Neuroticism remain challenging. Although open-source models sometimes approach GPT-4 and prior benchmarks, no configuration yields consistently reliable predictions in zero-shot binary settings. Moreover, aggregate metrics such as accuracy and macro-F1 mask significant asymmetries, with per-class recall offering clearer diagnostic value. These findings show that current out-of-the-box LLMs are not yet suitable for APPT, and that careful coordination of prompt design, trait framing, and evaluation metrics is essential for interpretable results.