Paper detail

The TEA Nets framework combines AI and cognitive network science to model targets, events and actors in text

We introduce Target-Event-Agent Networks (TEA Nets) as a computational framework to extract subjects (``Agents"), verbs (``Events"), and objects (``Targets") from texts. Grounded in cognitive network science and artificial intelligence, TEA Nets are implemented as an open-source Python library. We test TEA Nets in three case studies, demonstrating the framework's ability to perform interpretable emotion detection, semantic frame analyses, and linguistic inquiries across conspiracy texts and textual responses generated by LLMs. In the LOCO conspiracy corpus, TEA Nets revealed that highly conspiratorial narratives (4,227 texts) linked personal pronouns (``I", ``you", ``we") with the same actions twice as frequently as low-similarity conspiracy narratives. High-conspiracy narratives connected person-focused elements (``you", ``people") through actions eliciting anger above the random baseline ($z = 2.63, p < .05$), a trend absent in low-similarity conspiracy narratives, which emphasized scientific actors (``researcher", ``scientist"). In the HOPE and CounseLLMe datasets of 212 (human) and 200 (LLM-based) psychotherapy transcripts, respectively, TEA Nets highlighted emotional differences. When expressing feelings, Claude 3 Haiku, GPT-3.5, and humans used sad words with higher frequency than random expectations but Haiku expressed sadness with lower emotional intensity than humans ($U = 1243.5, p = .036$). We discuss these differences in the context of psychotherapy training on LLM-simulated patients. Our results show that Target-Event-Agent Networks can extract relevant emotional, syntactic, and semantic insights from narratives, opening new avenues for text analysis with cognitive network science.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.