Topic‐based web site summarization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Summarization of an entire web site with diverse content may lead to a summary heavily biased towards the site's dominant topics. The purpose of this paper is to present a novel topic‐based framework to address this problem. Design/methodology/approach A two‐stage framework is proposed. The first stage identifies the main topics covered in a web site via clustering and the second stage summarizes each topic separately. The proposed system is evaluated by a user study and compared with the single‐topic summarization approach. Findings The user study demonstrates that the clustering‐summarization approach statistically significantly outperforms the plain summarization approach in the multi‐topic web site summarization task. Text‐based clustering based on selecting features with high variance over web pages is reliable; outgoing links are useful if a rich set of cross links is available. Research limitations/implications More sophisticated clustering methods than those used in this study are worth investigating. The proposed method should be tested on web content that is less structured than organizational web sites, for example blogs. Practical implications The proposed summarization framework can be applied to the effective organization of search engine results and faceted or topical browsing of large web sites. Originality/value Several key components are integrated for web site summarization for the first time, including feature selection and link analysis, key phrase and key sentence extraction. Insight into the contributions of links and content to topic‐based summarization was gained. A classification approach is used to minimize the number of parameters.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".