MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137320444

Linear Text Segmentation Using Affinity Propagation

2011· article· en· W2137320444 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicText and Document Classification Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffinity propagationSegmentationComputer scienceCluster analysisPairwise comparisonGraphImage segmentationSet (abstract data type)AlgorithmArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Theoretical computer scienceCorrelation clusteringCanopy clustering algorithm
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a new algorithm for linear text segmentation. It is an adaptation of Affinity Propagation, a state-of-the-art clustering algorithm in the framework of factor graphs. Affinity Propagation for Segmentation, or APS, receives a set of pairwise similarities between data points and produces segment boundaries and segment centres -- data points which best describe all other data points within the segment. APS iteratively passes messages in a cyclic factor graph, until convergence. Each iteration works with information on all available similarities, resulting in high-quality results. APS scales linearly for realistic segmentation tasks. We derive the algorithm from the original Affinity Propagation formulation, and evaluate its performance on topical text segmentation in comparison with two state-of-the art segmenters. The results suggest that APS performs on par with or outperforms these two very competitive baselines.

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 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.185 · 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