MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W584835505

Automatic text summarization in digital libraries

2006· dissertation· en· W584835505 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Angela Mlynarski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomatic summarizationDigital libraryComputer scienceInformation retrievalWorld Wide WebNatural language processingLibrary scienceLinguisticsPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A digital library is a collection of services and information objects for storing, accessing, and retrieving digital objects. Automatic text summarization presents salient information in a condensed form suitable for user needs. This thesis amalgamates digital libraries and automatic text summarization by extending the Greenstone Digital Library software suite to include the University of Lethbridge Summarizer. The tool generates summaries, nouns, and non phrases for use as metadata for searching and browsing digital collections. Digital collections of newspapers, PDFs, and eBooks were created with summary metadata. PDF documents were processed the fastest at 1.8 MB/hr, followed by the newspapers at 1.3 MB/hr, with eBooks being the slowest at 0.9 MV/hr. Qualitative analysis on four genres: newspaper, M.Sc. thesis, novel, and poetry, revealed narrative newspapers were most suitable for automatically generated summarization. The other genres suffered from incoherence and information loss. Overall, summaries for digital collections are suitable when used with newspaper documents and unsuitable for other genres.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207