We investigate the extraction and normalisation of phrases describing work from 18th-century Swedish petitions using four LLMs: GPT-4o, Llama-3 70B/8B, and Mixtral-8x7B. Performance is evaluated across four configurations: isolated extraction, isolated normalisation, a staged pipeline, and a combined multitasking setup, using both full and filtered texts (with formal greetings and closing sections removed). While exact phrase matching remains low (F1 < .10), token-level and semantic similarity scores suggest that models consistently locate relevant topical regions. Semantic similarity scores must however be interpreted with caution, since they are often only marginally higher than an average baseline. Results reveal a “multitasking paradox”: combined extraction and normalisation improves phrase location for high-parameter models but degrades normalisation precision. Furthermore, normalisation benefits from the context of a staged pipeline compared to isolated tasks, while text filtering has only marginal effects. Despite a tendency towards over-prediction, qualitative analysis suggests that models can detect plausible work-related expressions missed by human annotators. These findings illustrate the challenges of historical extraction and suggest that hybrid human–machine workflows are a promising approach for enhancing coverage and interpretability in cultural heritage research.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive capabilities across many NLP tasks, but their effectiveness on fine-grained content annotation, especially for historical texts, remains underexplored. This study investigates how well GPT-4, Gemini, Mixtral, Mistral, and LLaMA can identify rhetorical sections (Salutatio, Petitio, and Conclusio) in 100 English and 100 Swedish petitions using few-shot prompting with varying levels of detail. Most models perform very well, achieving F1 scores in the high 90s for Salutatio, though Petitio and Conclusio prove more challenging, particularly for smaller models and Swedish data. Cross-lingual prompting yields mixed results, and models generally underestimate document difficulty. These findings demonstrate the strong potential of LLMs for assisting with nuanced historical annotation while highlighting areas for further investigation.

Natural language processing techniques can be valuable for improving and facilitating historical research. This is also true for the analysis of petitions, a source which has been relatively little used in historical research. However, limited data resources pose challenges for mainstream natural language processing approaches based on machine learning. In this paper, we explore methods for automatically segmenting petitions according to their rhetorical structure. We find that the use of rules, word embeddings, and especially keywords can give promising results for this task.

Petitions are a rich historical source, yet they have been relatively little used in historical research. In this paper, we aim to analyse Swedish texts from around the 18th century, and petitions in particular, using automatic means of text classification. We also test how text pre-processing and different feature representations affect the result, and we examine feature importance for our main class of interest - petitions. Our experiments show that the statistical algorithms NB, RF, SVM, and kNN are indeed very able to classify different genres of historical text. Further, we find that normalisation has a positive impact on classification, and that content words are particularly informative for the traditional models. A fine-tuned BERT model, fed with normalised data, outperforms all other classification experiments with a macro average F1 score at 98.8. However, using less computationally expensive methods, including feature representation with word2vec, fastText embeddings or even TF-IDF values, with a SVM classifier also show good results for both unnormalise and normalised data. In the feature importance analysis, where we obtain the features most decisive for the classification models, we find highly relevant characteristics of the petitions, namely words expressing signs of someone inferior addressing someone superior.