Insertion of Ontological Knowledge to Improve Automatic Summarization Extraction Methods
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
The vast availability of information sources has created a need for research on automatic summarization. Current methods perform either by extraction or abstraction. The extraction methods are interesting, because they are robust and independent of the language used. An extractive summary is obtained by selecting sentences of the original source based on information content. This selection can be automated using a classification function induced by a machine learning algorithm. This function classifies sentences into two groups: important or non-important. The important sentences then form the summary. But, the efficiency of this function directly depends on the used training set to induce it. This paper proposes an original way of optimizing this training set by inserting lexemes obtained from ontological knowledge bases. The training set optimized is reinforced by ontological knowledge. An experiment with four machine learning algorithms was made to validate this proposition. The improvement achieved is clearly significant for each of these algorithms.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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