MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385595405 · doi:10.1145/3573128.3604901

WEATHERGOV+

2023· article· en· W4385595405 on OpenAlexaff
Amanda Dash, Melissa Cote, Alexandra Branzan Albu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHandwritten Text Recognition Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomatic summarizationComputer sciencePipeline (software)Table (database)Information retrievalSegmentationRowInformation extractionArtificial intelligenceData miningNatural language processingDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tables, ubiquitous in data-oriented documents like scientific papers and financial statements, organize and convey relational information. Automatic table recognition from document images, which involves detection within the page, structural segmentation into rows, columns, and cells, and information extraction from cells, has been a popular research topic in document image analysis (DIA). With recent advances in natural language generation (NLG) based on deep neural networks, data-to-text generation, in particular for table summarization, offers interesting solutions to time-intensive data analysis. In this paper, we aim to bridge the gap between efforts in DIA and NLG regarding tabular data: we propose WEATHERGOV+, a dataset building upon the WEATHERGOV dataset, the standard for tabular data summarization techniques, that allows for the training and testing of end-to-end methods working from input document images to generate text summaries as output. WEATHERGOV+ contains images of tables created from the tabular data of WEATHERGOV using visual variations that cover various levels of difficulty, along with the corresponding human-generated table summaries of WEATHERGOV. We also propose an end-to-end pipeline that compares state-of-the-art table recognition methods for summarization purposes. We analyse the results of the proposed pipeline by evaluating WEATHERGOV+ at each stage of the pipeline to identify the effects of error propagation and the weaknesses of the current methods, such as OCR errors. With this research (dataset and code available here1), we hope to encourage new research for the processing and management of inter- and intra-document collections.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1090.145

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHandwritten Text Recognition TechniquesFrench-language works237,207