Learning important models for web page blocks based on layout and content analysis
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
Previous work shows that a web page can be partitioned into multiple segments or blocks, and often the importance of those blocks in a page is not equivalent. It has also been proven that differentiating noisy and unimportant blocks from pages can facilitate web mining, search and accessibility. However, no uniform approach and model has been presented to measure the importance of different blocks in a web page. Through a user study, we found that people do have a consistent view about the importance of blocks in a web page. Thus, we investigate how to find a model to automatically assign importance values to blocks in a web page. We formulate the block importance estimation as a learning problem. First, we use a vision-based page segmentation technique to partition a web page into semantic blocks with a hierarchical structure. Then spatial features (such as position and size) and content features (such as the number of images and links) are extracted to construct a feature vector for each block. Then, learning algorithms are used to train a model to assign importance to each block in the web page. In our experiments, the best model can achieve the performance with Micro-F1 80.2% and Micro-Accuracy 86.8%.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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