Addressing the Problem of Coherence in Automatic Text Summarization: A Latent Semantic Analysis Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is concerned with addressing the problem of coherence in the automatic summarization of prose fiction texts. Despite the increasing advances within the summarization theory, applications and industry, many problems are still unresolved in relations to the applications of the summarization theory to literature. This can be in part attributed to the peculiar nature of literary texts where standard or typical summarization processes are not amenable for literature. This study, therefore, tends to bridge the gap between literature and summarization theory by proposing a summarization system that is based on more semantic-based approaches for extracting more meaningful and coherent summaries. Given that lack of coherence within summaries has its negative implications on understanding original texts; it follows that more effective methods should be developed in relation to the extraction of coherent summaries. In order to do this, a hybrid of methods including statistical (TF-IDF) and semantic (Latent Semantic Analysis LSA) methods were used to derive the most distinctive features and extract summaries from 10 English novellas. For evaluation purposes, both intrinsic and extrinsic methods are used for determining the quality of the extracted summaries. Results indicate that the integration of LSA into features extraction methods achieves better summarization performance outcomes in terms of coherence properties within the extracted summaries.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".