Researchers in Holocaust studies have often distinguished between two styles of oral survivor testimony: the USC Shoah Foundation’s interviews tend to follow a structured, interviewer-guided format, whereas the Yale Fortunoff Video Archive generally favors a more free-form, open-ended style. This distinction has influenced both scholarly research and the development of later archives. In this study, we critically examine that claim by conducting a large-scale computational analysis of more than 1,600 testimonies from both collections. Leveraging discourse segmentation, topic modeling, and large language model (LLM) based analysis, we quantify the “structuredness” level of testimonies through topic coherence, interviewer–survivor dynamics, and the distribution of question types. Our results generally corroborate the structural differences identified in earlier research, while also revealing significant overlaps between the collections, both within individual interviews and across common narrative patterns. This complicates the simple “structured vs. free-form” dichotomy often applied to these oral histories. Beyond revisiting a foundational claim in Holocaust studies, our work provides a scalable, replicable framework for comparative corpus analysis. As a proof of concept, it suggests broader applications for digital oral history, narrative analysis, and the design of citizen-science annotation platforms.

Using LLMs for Multi-Document Topic Extraction has recently gained popularity due to their apparent high-quality outputs, expressiveness, and ease of use. However, most existing evaluation practices are not designed for LLM-generated topics and result in low inter-annotator agreement scores, hindering the reliable use of LLMs for the task. To address this, we introduce T⁵Score, an evaluation methodology that decomposes the quality of a topic set into quantifiable aspects, measurable through easy-to-perform annotation tasks. This framing enables a convenient, manual or automatic, evaluation procedure resulting in a strong inter-annotator agreement score.To substantiate our methodology and claims, we perform extensive experimentation on multiple datasets and report the results.