MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384158719 · doi:10.32620/reks.2023.2.01

Automatic text summarization based on extractive-abstractive method

2023· article· en· W4384158719 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRADIOELECTRONIC AND COMPUTER SYSTEMS · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomatic summarizationComputer scienceSentenceRanking (information retrieval)Natural language processingArtificial intelligenceTask (project management)WordNetMeaning (existential)Information retrievalFace (sociological concept)NounRank (graph theory)LinguisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The choice of this study has a significant impact on daily life. In various fields such as journalism, academia, business, and more, large amounts of text need to be processed quickly and efficiently. Text summarization is a technique used to generate a precise and shortened summary of spacious texts. The generated summary sustains overall meaning without losing any information and focuses on those parts that contain useful information. The goal is to develop a model that converts lengthy articles into concise versions. The task to be solved is to select an effective procedure to develop the model. Although the present text summarization models give us good results in many recognized datasets such as cnn/daily- mail, newsroom, etc. All the problems can not be resolved by these models. In this paper, a new text summarization method has been proposed: combining the Extractive and Abstractive Text Summarization technique. In the extractive-based method, the model generates a summary using Sentence Ranking Algorithm and passes this generated summary through an abstractive method. When using the sentence ranking algorithm, after rearranging the sentences, the relationship between one sentence and another sentence is destroyed. To overcome this situation, Pronoun to Noun conversion has been proposed with the new system. After generating the extractive summary, the generated summary is passed through the abstractive method. The proposed abstractive model consists of three pre-trained models: google/pegusus-xsum, face-book/bart-large-cnn model, and Yale-LILY/brio-cnndm-uncased, which generates a final summary depending on the maximum final score. The following results were obtained: experimental results on CNN/daily-mail dataset show that the proposed model obtained scores of ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2 and ROUGE-L are respectively 42.67 %, 19.35 %, and 39.57 %. Then, the result has been compared with three state-of-the-art methods: JEANS, DEATS and PGAN-ATSMT. The results outperform state-of-the-art models. Experimental results also show that the proposed model is qualitatively readable and can generate abstract summaries. Conclusion: In terms of ROUGE score, the model outperforms some art-of-the-state models for ROUGE-1 and ROUGE-L, but doesn’t achieve good result in ROUGE-2.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.243 · 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