Leveraging Narrative to Generate Movie Script
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
Generating a text based on a predefined guideline is an interesting but challenging problem. A series of studies have been carried out in recent years. In dialogue systems, researchers have explored driving a dialogue based on a plan, while in story generation, a storyline has also been proved to be useful. In this article, we address a new task—generating movie scripts based on a predefined narrative. As an early exploration, we study this problem in a “retrieval-based” setting. We propose a model (ScriptWriter-CPre) to select the best response (i.e., next script line) among the candidates that fit the context (i.e., previous script lines) as well as the given narrative. Our model can keep track of what in the narrative has been said and what is to be said. Besides, it can also predict which part of the narrative should be paid more attention to when selecting the next line of script. In our study, we find the narrative plays a different role than the context. Therefore, different mechanisms are designed for deal with them. Due to the unavailability of data for this new application, we construct a new large-scale data collection GraphMovie from a movie website where end-users can upload their narratives freely when watching a movie. This new dataset is made available publicly to facilitate other studies in text generation under the guideline. Experimental results on the dataset show that our proposed approach based on narratives significantly outperforms the baselines that simply use the narrative as a kind of context.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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