MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163085600 · doi:10.1145/1125451.1125677

An interactive speech interface for summarizing agile project planning meetings

2006· article· en· W2163085600 on OpenAlexaff
Shelly Park, Jörg Denzinger, Frank Maurer, Ehud Sharlin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and dialogue systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgile software developmentAmbiguityComputer scienceInterface (matter)Natural languageHuman–computer interactionNatural language understandingNatural (archaeology)User interfaceNatural language processingSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we present an autonomous meeting summarizer that transcribes an agile planning meeting and produces a textual summary of the discussion. We explore the issues involved in designing a speech-based interactive system that communicates with humans in a natural language. The inherent nature of ambiguity in conversational speech is overcome by suggesting a list of possible phrases to listen for. The system interacts with users in an interview-style dialogue for data collections. This is possible because we used the highly constrained structure and terminologies of agile planning meetings to make the approach successful.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.292 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech and dialogue systemsFrench-language works237,207