Summarizing videos into a target language: Methodology, architectures and evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the work is to report the results of the Chist-Era project AMIS (Access Multilingual Information opinionS). The purpose of AMIS is to answer the following question: How to make the information in a foreign language accessible for everyone? This issue is not limited to translate a source video into a target language video since the objective is to provide only the main idea of an Arabic video in English. This objective necessitates developing research in several areas that are not, all arrived at a maturity state: Video summarization, Speech recognition, Machine translation, Audio summarization and Speech segmentation. In this article we present several possible architectures to achieve our objective, yet we focus on only one of them. The scientific locks are be presented, and we explain how to deal with them. One of the big challenges of this work is to conceive a way to evaluate objectively a system composed of several components knowing that each of them has its limits and can propagate errors through the first component. Also, a subjective evaluation procedure is proposed in which several annotators have been mobilized to test the quality of the achieved 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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".