Saying What You're Looking For: Linguistics Meets Video Search
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present an approach to searching large video corpora for clips which depict a natural-language query in the form of a sentence. Compositional semantics is used to encode subtle meaning differences lost in other approaches, such as the difference between two sentences which have identical words but entirely different meaning: The person rode the horse versus The horse rode the person. Given a sentential query and a natural-language parser, we produce a score indicating how well a video clip depicts that sentence for each clip in a corpus and return a ranked list of clips. Two fundamental problems are addressed simultaneously: detecting and tracking objects, and recognizing whether those tracks depict the query. Because both tracking and object detection are unreliable, our approach uses the sentential query to focus the tracker on the relevant participants and ensures that the resulting tracks are described by the sentential query. While most earlier work was limited to single-word queries which correspond to either verbs or nouns, we search for complex queries which contain multiple phrases, such as prepositional phrases, and modifiers, such as adverbs. We demonstrate this approach by searching for 2,627 naturally elicited sentential queries in 10 Hollywood movies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it