Extractive Text Summarization Using Recent Approaches: A Survey
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
In this era of growing digital media, the volume of text data increases day by day from various sources and may contain entire documents, books, articles, etc. This amount of text is a source of information that may be insignificant, redundant, and sometimes may not carry any meaningful representation. Therefore, we require some techniques and tools that can automatically summarize the enormous amounts of text data and help us to decide whether they are useful or not. Text summarization is a process that generates a brief version of the document in the form of a meaningful summary. It can be classified into abstractive text summarization and extractive text summarization. Abstractive text summarization generates an abstract type of summary from the given document. In extractive text summarization, a summary is created from the given document that contains crucial sentences of the document. Many authors proposed various techniques for both types of text summarization. This paper presents a survey of extractive text summarization on graphical-based techniques. Specifically, it focuses on unsupervised and supervised techniques. This paper shows the recent works and advances on them and focuses on the strength and weaknesses of surveys of previous works in tabular form. At last, it concentrates on the evaluation measure techniques of summary.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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