I think it’s to be expected and excusable. When reading the summary with it in mind, that it’s a bot summary, not a human summary, it’s acceptable and still useful. Text is not necessarily coherent. And when it isn’t, it can indicate other content.
I read a different autosummary earlier today with a similar issue. It referred to something or someone not previously mentioned in the summary. With auto-summarization in mind, it was obvious that there is more information on that in the full article. In a way, that was also useful in and of itself (instead of simple emission).
Dunno why asking whether to ban. Are others even better? None logically understand the text. If most are coherent, this may be an outlier. If machine summarization is not good enough for someone they don’t have to read it.
I think it’s to be expected and excusable. When reading the summary with it in mind, that it’s a bot summary, not a human summary, it’s acceptable and still useful. Text is not necessarily coherent. And when it isn’t, it can indicate other content.
I read a different autosummary earlier today with a similar issue. It referred to something or someone not previously mentioned in the summary. With auto-summarization in mind, it was obvious that there is more information on that in the full article. In a way, that was also useful in and of itself (instead of simple emission).
Dunno why asking whether to ban. Are others even better? None logically understand the text. If most are coherent, this may be an outlier. If machine summarization is not good enough for someone they don’t have to read it.