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
In this work we describe a large-scale extrinsic evaluation of automatic speech summarization technologies for meeting speech. The particular task is a decision audit, wherein a user must satisfy a complex information need, navigating several meetings in order to gain an understanding of how and why a given decision was made. We compare the usefulness of extractive and abstractive technologies in satisfying this information need, and assess the impact of automatic speech recognition (ASR) errors on user performance. We employ several evaluation methods for participant performance, including post-questionnaire data, human subjective and objective judgments, and a detailed analysis of participant browsing behavior. We find that while ASR errors affect user satisfaction on an information retrieval task, users can adapt their browsing behavior to complete the task satisfactorily. Results also indicate that users consider extractive summaries to be intuitive and useful tools for browsing multimodal meeting data. We discuss areas in which automatic summarization techniques can be improved in comparison with gold-standard meeting abstracts.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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