Validation of an Improved Vision-Based Web Page Parsing Pipeline
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 article, we present a novel approach to quantitative evaluation of a model for parsing web pages as visual images, intended to provide improvements for users with assistive needs (cognitive or visual deficits, enabling decluttering or zooming and supporting more effective screen reader output). This segmentation-classification pipeline is tested in stages: We first discuss the validation of the segmentation algorithm, showing that our approach produces automated segmentations that are very similar to those produced by real users when making use of a drawing interface to designate edges and regions. We also examine the properties of these ground truth segmentations produced under different conditions. We then describe our Hidden Markov tree approach for classification and present results which serve provide important validation for this model. The analysis is set against effective choices for dataset and pruning options, measured with respect to manual ground truth labelling of regions. In all, we offer a detailed quantitative validation (focused on complex news pages) of a fully pipelined approach for interpreting web pages as visual images, an approach which enables important advances for users with assistive needs.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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