The Rhetorical Parsing of Unrestricted Texts: A Surface-based Approach
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
Coherent texts are not just simple sequences of clauses and sentences, but rather complex artifacts that have highly elaborate rhetorical structure. This paper explores the extent to which well-formed rhetorical structures can be automatically derived by means of surface-form-based algorithms. These algorithms identify discourse usages of cue phrases and break sentences into clauses, hypothesize rhetorical relations that hold among textual units, and produce valid rhetorical structure trees for unrestricted natural language texts. The algorithms are empirically grounded in a corpus analysis of cue phrases and rely on a first-order formalization of rhetorical structure trees. The algorithms are evaluated both intrinsically and extrinsically. The intrinsic evaluation assesses the resemblance between automatically and manually constructed rhetorical structure trees. The extrinsic evaluation shows that automatically derived rhetorical structures can be successfully exploited in the context of text summarization.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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