Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present a comparative study of abstracts and machine‐generated summaries. This study bridges two hitherto independent lines of research: the descriptive analyses of abstracts as a genre and the testing of summaries produced by automatic text summarization (ATS). A pilot sample of eight articles was gathered from Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA) database, with each article including an author‐written abstract and one of four types of indexed abstracts. Three ATS systems (Copernic Summarizer, Microsoft AutoSummarize, SweSum) were used to produce three additional summaries per article. The structure, content and style of abstracts and summaries were analyzed by building on genre analysis methods, creating ten functional categories. Summaries and abstracts demonstrate variability in analyzed features and captured concepts, with some consistencies and overlap. Incorporating ATS output can be useful to information seekers: summaries complement abstracts by expanding representativeness of source articles. Yet certain cognitive processes performed by abstractors remain irreplaceable.
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 | 0.013 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".