MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164755781 · doi:10.3115/v1/d14-1085

Unsupervised Sentence Enhancement for Automatic Summarization

2014· article· en· W2164755781 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
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrammaticalityAutomatic summarizationCoreferenceComputer scienceSentenceNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceSource textResolution (logic)Semantics (computer science)Event (particle physics)LinguisticsGrammarPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present sentence enhancement as a novel technique for text-to-text genera-tion in abstractive summarization. Com-pared to extraction or previous approaches to sentence fusion, sentence enhancement increases the range of possible summary sentences by allowing the combination of dependency subtrees from any sentence from the source text. Our experiments in-dicate that our approach yields summary sentences that are competitive with a sen-tence fusion baseline in terms of con-tent quality, but better in terms of gram-maticality, and that the benefit of sen-tence enhancement relies crucially on an event coreference resolution algorithm us-ing distributional semantics. We also consider how text-to-text generation ap-proaches to summarization can be ex-tended beyond the source text by exam-ining how human summary writers incor-porate source-text-external elements into their summary sentences. 1

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207