MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390913029 · doi:10.21437/iscslp.2008-51

Subword Latent Semantic Analysis for TextTiling-based Automatic Story Segmentation of Chinese Broadcast News

2008· article· en· W4390913029 on OpenAlexaff
Yulian Yang, Lei Xie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech Recognition and Synthesis
Canadian institutionsScience North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBigramComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSpeech recognitionLatent semantic analysisNatural language processingRobustness (evolution)Mandarin ChineseSentenceTreebankHidden Markov modelSegmentationCharacter (mathematics)Text segmentationTrigramAnnotationLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes to perform latent semantic analysis (LSA) on character/syllable n-gram sequences of automatic speech recognition (ASR) transcripts, namely subword LSA, as an extension of our previous work on subword TextTiling for automatic story segmentation of Chinese broadcast news. LSA represents the 'meaning' of a lexical term by a feature vector conveying the term's relations with other terms. We apply subword LSA vectors to the measurement of inter-sentence lexical score in TextTiling-based story segmentation. Subword n-grams are robust to speech recognition errors, especially out-of-vocabulary (OOV) words, in lexical matching on Chinese ASR transcripts. This work combines the concept matching merit of LSA and the robustness of subwords. Experimental results on the TDT2 Mandarin corpus show that subword-LSA-based TextTiling can effectively improve the story segmentation performance. Character-bigram-LSA-based TextTiling achieves the best F1-measure of 0.6598 with relative improvement of 17.4% over the conventional word-based TextTiling and 6.5% over our previous syllable-bigram-based TextTiling.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.239 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpeech Recognition and SynthesisFrench-language works237,207