Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using Latent Semantic Analysis Tristan Miller Master of Science Graduate Department of Computer Science University of Toronto 2003 A major problem with automatically-produced summaries in general, and extracts in particular, is that the output text often lacks textual coherence. Our goal is to improve the textual coherence of automatically produced extracts. We developed and implemented an algorithm which builds an initial extract composed solely of topic sentences, and then recursively lls in the lacunae by providing linking material from the original text between semantically dissimilar sentences. Our summarizer diers in architecture from most others in that it measures semantic similarity with latent semantic analysis (LSA), a factor analysis technique based on the vector-space model of information retrieval. We believed that the deep semantic relations discovered by LSA would assist in the identi cation and correction of abrupt topic shifts in the summaries. However, our experiments did not show a statistically signi cant dierence in the coherence of summaries produced by our system as compared with a non-LSA version.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".