Simulation of Subjective Closed Captioning Quality Assessment Using Prediction Models
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
As a primary user group, Deaf or Hard of Hearing (D/HOH) audiences use Closed Captioning (CC) service to enjoy the TV programs with audio by reading text. However, the D/HOH communities are not completely satisfied with the quality of CC even though the government regulators entail certain rules in the CC quality factors. The measure of the CC quality is often interpreted as an accuracy on translation and regulators use the empirical models to assess. The need of a subjective quality scale comes from the gap in between current empirical assessment models and the audience perceived quality. It is possible to fill the gap by including the subjective assessment by D/HOH audiences. This research proposes a design of an automatic quality assessment system for CC which can predict the D/HOH audience subjective ratings. A simulated rater is implemented based on literature and the CC quality factor representative value extraction algorithm is developed. Three prediction models are trained with a set of CC quality values and corresponding rating scores, then they are compared to find the feasible prediction model.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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