Proceedings of the Workshop on New Frontiers in Summarization
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
With the prevalence of video sharing, there are increasing demands for automatic video digestion such as highlight detection. Recently, platforms with crowdsourced time-sync video comments have emerged worldwide, providing a good opportunity for highlight detection. However, this task is non-trivial: (1) time-sync comments often lag behind their corresponding shot; (2) time-sync comments are semantically sparse and noisy; (3) to determine which shots are highlights is highly subjective. The present paper aims to tackle these challenges by proposing a framework that (1) uses concept-mapped lexical-chains for lagcalibration; (2) models video highlights based on comment intensity and combination of emotion and concept concentration of each shot; (3) summarize each detected highlight using improved SumBasic with emotion and concept mapping. Experiments on large real-world datasets show that our highlight detection method and summarization method both outperform other benchmarks with considerable margins.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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