A Dataset for Understanding Open UGC Video Datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
User Generated Content (UGC) video streaming is a major application on the Internet. Even small bitrate savings can have large network impacts at this scale. In order to achieve improvements without sacrificing experience, the quality of UGC videos needs to be better understood. In recent years video quality evaluation models designed for the evaluation of UGC videos have received a lot of attention. However, considering that these models are learning-based models, they heavily depend on the training data that has been used. In this paper, a new dataset is introduced that allows studying the differences in characteristics between existing UGC video datasets. It reveals the range of quality that was covered by existing UGC video datasets, and the implication of these quality ranges on training and validation performance of UGC video quality prediction models. Furthermore, this work demonstrates that dataset alignment enables existing UGC models to achieve higher performance. This alignment dataset can be found openly available on Zenodo (https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.12155934).
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".