TEXT SUMMARIZATION USING LEXICAL COHESION: APPROACHES AND EVALUATIONS
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
Popularity of the Internet has contributed towards the explosive growth of online information, and it is especially useful to have tools which can help users digest information content. Text summarization addresses this need by taking a source text, selecting the most important portions of it, and presenting coherent summary to the user in a manner sensitive to the user's or application's needs. The goal of this paper is to show how these objectives can be achieved through an efficient use of lexical cohesion. The current work addresses both generic and query-based summaries in the context of single documents and sets of documents as in current news. We present an approach for identifying the most important portions of the text which are topically best suited to represent the source texts according to the author's views or in response to the user's interests. This identification must also take into consideration the degree of connectiveness among the chosen text portions so as to minimize the danger of producing summaries which contain poorly linked sentences. We present a system that handles these objectives, discuss its performance, and evaluate it and compare it to other systems in the context of Document Understanding Conference (DUC) evaluations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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