MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076749833 · doi:10.3115/1614049.1614099

Comparing the roles of textual, acoustic and spoken-language features on spontaneous-conversation summarization

2006· article· en· W2076749833 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaodan Zhu, Gerald Penn

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomatic summarizationComputer scienceConversationNatural language processingFeature (linguistics)Speech recognitionArtificial intelligenceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is concerned with the summarization of spontaneous conversations. Compared with broadcast news, which has received intensive study, spontaneous conversations have been less addressed in the literature. Previous work has focused on textual features extracted from transcripts. This paper explores and compares the effectiveness of both textual features and speech-related features. The experiments show that these features incrementally improve summarization performance. We also find that speech disfluencies, which have been removed as noise in previous work, help identify important utterances, while the structural feature is less effective than it is in broadcast news.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNatural Language Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207