MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244046436 · doi:10.3166/dn.15.2.91-120

L'utilisation de schémas de discours pour améliorer la pertinence et la cohérence discursive dans le cadre du résumé automatique de blogs

2012· article· fr· W4244046436 on OpenAlexafffund
Shamima Mithun, Leila Kosseim

Bibliographic record

VenueDocument numérique · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPolitical sciencePhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Question irrelevance and discourse incoherence are important and typical problems in multi-document summarization especially when dealing with informal and opinionated texts. To address these two issues, we propose a domain-independent query-based summarization approach for opinionated documents that uses intra-sentential discourse structures in the framework of schemata. We have developed a generic domain-independent schema-based approach that selects the most appropriate text schema to answer specific types of questions. The schemata define the content and the organization of summaries based on the discourse relations present in candidate sentences. To decide which candidate sentences should be included in the final summary and where, each sentence is automatically tagged with the rhetorical predicates it conveys and allowed to fill a slot of the schema. Finally post-schema heuristics that work at the inter-sentence level are used to improve coherence further. To validate our approach, we have built a system named BlogSum and have evaluated its performance for question relevance and coherence using two datasets: blogs and reviews. ROUGE scores show that our approach is effective at reducing question irrelevant sentences and a manual evaluation shows a significant improvement in question relevance and coherence compared to the original candidate list. These results indicate that the use of discourse relations combined with text schemas can effectively reduce question irrelevance and discourse incoherence even with informal and opinionated documents.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDocument numériqueSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207