Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Transforming Podcast Preview Generation: From Expert Models to LLM-Based Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A single LLM, given timestamped transcripts and episode metadata, can generate podcast previews that outperform a pipeline of expert models on preference and engagement metrics.

desk verdict Credible production report that a single prompted LLM can replace a multi-model podcast-preview pipeline, but the A/B engagement numbers need more reporting before the headline claim is fully established. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23908 v2 pith:SARUDGRF submitted 2025-05-29 cs.IR

Winstead Zhu , Ann Clifton , Azin Ghazimatin , Edgar Tanaka , Edward Ronan This is my paper
classification cs.IR
keywords podcastpreviewgenerationlargelanguagemodelsfew-shotpromptingtimestampedtranscriptscontentdiscoveryA/Btestingfeatureengineeringengagementmetrics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that a single large language model, given a timestamped sentence-by-sentence transcript and episode metadata, can select short podcast preview segments that listeners find more engaging than the segments chosen by a production pipeline of specialized machine-learning models for topics, sentiment, ads, and sound events. Offline, 238 human evaluations of real episodes found the LLM preview better or tied in 81.09% of comparisons and strictly better in 54.2%, a result the authors report as statistically significant. Online, a six-week A/B test in the product showed a 4.6% increase in time spent evaluating previews per user and a 4% increase per preview during the second week, along with a 5x reduction in processing time to under 20 seconds per episode. If these results hold, prompt engineering can replace much of the feature engineering and model orchestration that content-curation systems have traditionally required.

What carries the argument

The mechanism carrying the argument is timestamped sentencization: the transcript is split into individual sentences, each annotated with start and end times in seconds, and these time-stamped sentences are fed into the LLM prompt along with title and description. This lets the LLM choose preview boundaries as exact offsets, which the system then maps back to audio segments. The prompt also guides the model through structured reasoning—identify the main topic, evaluate candidate segments for relevance and engagement, generate an explanation and topic tags—and includes a set of preview requirements plus a few manually curated example previews. After the LLM selects a segment, a simple post-processing step trims it to the last complete sentence that starts within one minute. The sentencization is what makes the difference from a plain 'pick a segment' instruction: it converts the LLM's text understanding into precise, retrievable media positions.

What would settle it

Re-analyze the A/B experiment across all six weeks with pre-registered weekly metrics and confidence intervals; if the 4.6% per-user evaluation-time increase does not appear in the other weeks or disappears when restricting to episodes that actually had LLM previews, the central engagement claim is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that LLM-based preview generation outperforms the legacy ML preview system on both offline preference judgments and online engagement metrics, while being far simpler and faster. On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a prompted LLM, using only text metadata and transcripts, identifies self-contained, engaging preview segments as well as or better than a pipeline that aggregates topic analysis, sentiment intensity, ad detection, sound event detection, sentence-break detection, and ranking models. The offline evaluation found LLM previews strictly preferred in 54.2% of 238 episode annotations and preferred or tied in 81.09%, with the three question-specific measures (understandability, contextual clarity, interest level) all statistically significant. The online A/B test reported a 4.6% increase in podcast evaluation time per user and a 4% increase in evaluation time per preview in the second week. The authors also report a 5x processing speedup, averaging under 20 seconds per episode versus about 100 seconds for the legacy system.

Load-bearing premise

The claim of a statistically significant online engagement lift assumes the second-week measurement window was chosen before the experiment started and that the 34% of episodes carrying LLM previews still yields an unbiased estimate of the per-user effect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Preview generation becomes a prompt-maintenance task: product teams can change preview style or requirements by editing text in the prompt rather than retraining or reweighting a set of expert models.
  • The same timestamped-sentence pattern can be applied to other long-form audio or video content with transcripts, since it maps LLM-selected text spans onto media offsets.
  • Faster processing, under 20 seconds per episode, makes it practical to generate previews for a much larger share of newly published episodes, including long-tail shows that previously may not have had previews.
  • The structured outputs the LLM produces—an engagement explanation and topic tags—are available as extra metadata that the product can surface, not just the audio segment.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension is applying the timestamped-sentencization prompt to other long-form media with transcripts, such as lecture videos, to generate highlights from text-selected offsets.
  • The reported second-week-only A/B metrics could be supplemented by a full six-week, per-episode analysis; that would show whether the engagement lift is consistent or concentrated in one period.
  • Because the system only needs language tags and a translated prompt, non-English preview generation is a plausible low-effort follow-up that the paper mentions but does not test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper describes replacing a feature-engineered podcast-preview pipeline composed of multiple expert models (topic analysis, sentiment, ad detection, sound event detection, ranking) with a single prompted LLM system (Gemini 1.5 Pro) that selects one-minute transcript segments via timestamped sentencization. The authors report offline human evaluation results (238 annotations, 54.2% win rate, 81.09% win-or-tie, binomial p=1.37e-10; significant proportion z-tests on understandability, contextual clarity, and interest level), an online A/B test over six weeks with claims of 4.6% more podcast evaluation time per user and 4% more time per preview during the second week, and a 5x processing speedup (under 20 seconds vs. about 100 seconds per episode). The central claim is that LLM-generated previews consistently outperform the strong legacy baseline while eliminating extensive feature engineering.

Significance. If fully substantiated, the paper would offer a valuable industry-scale data point: a single LLM can replace a multi-model, hand-engineered pipeline for a concrete content-curation task, improving both quality and latency. The offline pairwise comparison methodology and the measured 5x throughput gain are concrete, reproducible contributions, and the deployment scale (hundreds of thousands of previews) makes the system description useful to practitioners. However, the headline engagement claim in the abstract rests on an online A/B result that is under-reported and internally difficult to reconcile, so the significance of the paper currently hinges on evidence that is not yet adequately established.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2 (Online A/B Test Results)] The reported A/B effect sizes are not self-consistent. The test exposed LLM previews on only 34% of episodes in the product, with the other 66% identical to control. If the 4% increase in 'evaluation time per preview' applies to all previews in the treatment arm, the implied effect on the changed 34% of previews is roughly 4%/0.34 ≈ 11.8%. If instead the 4% applies only to LLM previews, then, assuming the number of previews evaluated is unchanged, the user-level lift should be about 0.34 × 4% ≈ 1.4%, not 4.6%. The text does not report per-arm baseline means, standard errors, confidence intervals, p-values, previews-per-user counts, or any definition that disambiguates the metric's denominator. Additionally, only 'second week' results are given, with no indication that this window was pre-specified rather than selected after inspecting the data. These omissions make the abstract's claim that the online A/B test shows a 4.6% increase in engagement unsupported as reported; the authors should supply the full weekly time series, coverage-adjusted estimates, and explicit statistical tests for a pre-specified analysis window.
  2. [§3.3 (Prompt Iteration Process) and §4.1 (Offline Human Evaluation)] The paper does not state whether the episodes used to manually iterate the prompt in Section 3.3 ('a small evaluation dataset of episodes from diverse categories') are disjoint from the 238 episodes used in the offline evaluation of Section 4.1, nor whether the evaluators who provided feedback during prompt iteration are the same as the 'around 20 evaluators' in the offline study. If the same episodes or the same evaluators' judgments informed prompt tuning, the offline win rate of 54.2% is optimistically biased and the reported p-value overstates the evidence. The authors should explicitly confirm that the offline evaluation set was held out from prompt development and that evaluators were blind to which system produced each preview.
  3. [§5.1 (Offline Human Evaluation Results)] The statistical reporting for the offline evaluation is incomplete. The 81.09% 'better than or non-inferior' figure combines wins and ties, but a tie is not evidence of non-inferiority in the standard statistical sense; the paper should report a test on wins alone or a formal non-inferiority/equivalence test with a pre-defined margin. The binomial test compares wins to non-wins, but with around 20 evaluators rating 238 episodes, the effective sample size is smaller if evaluators cluster by episode or by rater; no inter-evaluator agreement metric is provided. The proportion z-test statistics in Table 2 are reported with negative values and a 'Yes' conclusion but the sign convention is not explained in the text. Confidence intervals for all reported proportions and z-test results should be added.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] The z-test statistics are all negative; the text should state explicitly which system is treated as the first proportion and that negative values favor LLM previews, so the reader can interpret the direction of the effect.
  2. [Figure 2] The text refers to '(Figure 2)' in Section 5.1, but no figure content appears in the supplied manuscript; ensure the figure is included and clearly labeled in the final version.
  3. [§3.3 (LLM Preview System)] The footnote identifies Gemini 1.5 Pro but does not specify the model version, access date, or inference settings (temperature, sampling, determinism); these details matter for reproducibility of the reported results.
  4. [§4.2 (Online A/B Test Setup)] The setup text says treatment users 'receiving LLM previews' but then states only 34% of episodes had LLM previews; please clarify the episode-level assignment and whether a single user could encounter both LLM and legacy previews, since this affects the interpretation of the user-level metric.
  5. [§5.2 (Online A/B Test Results)] The terms 'statistically significant' are used without reporting the test statistic or p-value for either metric; even a brief appendix table with weekly means, confidence intervals, and p-values would make the claims verifiable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is an empirical comparison with an independent online A/B benchmark; prompt iteration is engineering, not a fitted input being relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical comparison between an LLM-based preview system and a legacy feature-engineered ML system. No equation or definition in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to a fitted input or to a self-citation. The LLM prompt was manually iterated against human judgment on a small evaluation dataset, but this is prompt engineering, not statistical fitting of a parameter that is then called a prediction; the offline human evaluation compares the resulting system against a baseline on preference and rating questions, and the online A/B test is an external behavioral benchmark independent of the prompt-tuning dataset. The self-citations (Ghazimatin et al. 2024, Zhu et al. 2023, Zhu 2021, Tanaka 2022) are background and related-work references, not load-bearing justifications for the claimed superiority. The reported online results raise statistical-validity concerns, such as week-2-only reporting and 34% treatment coverage, but those are correctness risks, not circularity. No specific reduction of the form 'X is defined in terms of Y' or 'fitted parameter renamed as prediction' can be exhibited from the text. Thus the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a tuned prompt (a fitted artifact not disclosed), the choice of A/B analysis window, and the quality calibration of the in-house legacy baseline. No invented entities appear. The most load-bearing input is the prompt as manually iterated by product and design teams, since the offline evaluation criteria closely mirror the qualities the prompt was optimized to produce.

free parameters (4)
  • LLM prompt configuration (preview requirements list and curated few-shot examples) = Final prompt text not disclosed
    Section 3.3 Prompt Iteration Process: the prompt was manually optimized by product and design teams against human judgment on a small evaluation dataset; the final prompt and examples are not released, so the tuned artifact is unavailable.
  • A/B analysis window = Second week of the six-week test
    Section 5.2: both engagement metrics are reported for 'their second week in the experiment' with no justification; this choice determines the reported 4.6% and 4% effect sizes and is the headline result.
  • Legacy system adjustment scores for non-core speech elements = Predetermined, not disclosed
    Section 3.2: secondary signals are 'scaled and aggregated based on predetermined adjustment scores'; these hand-set values affect the strength of the baseline the LLM is compared against.
  • Post-processing trim rule = Trim to last complete sentence starting within one minute
    Section 3.3 Post-processing: a hand-chosen rule that affects final preview durations, reported as 62 seconds average for LLM previews versus 56 seconds for legacy.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Gemini 1.5 Pro reliably follows the structured reasoning prompt and returns accurate start and end timestamps.
    Section 3.3: the entire system relies on the model's instruction following and long-context understanding; no independent calibration of timestamp accuracy is reported.
  • domain assumption Punctuation-based sentencization preserves accurate sentence boundaries and timestamps.
    Section 3.3 Pre-processing: the LLM's offsets are only as good as the sentence boundaries; no evaluation of sentencization accuracy is given.
  • domain assumption Time spent evaluating a preview is a valid proxy for preview quality and engagement.
    Section 5.2: the A/B test treats increased evaluation time as the success metric; longer evaluation could also reflect confusion, and no secondary metrics such as play-through or subscription are reported.
  • domain assumption The in-house legacy ML system is a fair and strong baseline.
    Sections 3.2 and 4: the baseline is described as sophisticated, but its component models and adjustment scores are not independently audited, so the comparison rests on the authors' characterization.
  • standard math Standard significance tests apply validly to the 238 annotations.
    Section 5.1: binomial and proportion z-tests assume independent observations; independence may be violated if evaluators contributed different episode counts and episodes appear in multiple annotations, and the exact null proportion for the reported p=1.37e-10 is not specified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Transforming Podcast Preview Generation: From Expert Models to LLM-Based Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SARUDGRF

@misc{pith2026250523908,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Transforming Podcast Preview Generation: From Expert Models to LLM-Based Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SARUDGRF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23908}
}
read the original abstract

Discovering and evaluating long-form talk content such as videos and podcasts poses a significant challenge for users, as it requires a considerable time investment. Previews offer a practical solution by providing concise snippets that showcase key moments of the content, enabling users to make more informed and confident choices. We propose an LLM-based approach for generating podcast episode previews and deploy the solution at scale, serving hundreds of thousands of podcast previews in a real-world application. Comprehensive offline evaluations and online A/B testing demonstrate that LLM-generated previews consistently outperform a strong baseline built on top of various ML expert models, showcasing a significant reduction in the need for meticulous feature engineering. The offline results indicate notable enhancements in understandability, contextual clarity, and interest level, and the online A/B test shows a 4.6% increase in user engagement with preview content, along with a 5x boost in processing efficiency, offering a more streamlined and performant solution compared to the strong baseline of feature-engineered expert models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23908 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Legacy ML preview system vs. LLM preview system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Offline human evaluation: Overall comparison [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Taivanbat Badamdorj, Mrigank Rochan, Yang Wang, and Li Cheng. 2021. Joint visual and audio learning for video highlight detection. In 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 8107--8117. IEEE

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Aadit Barua, Karim Benharrak, Meng Chen, Mina Huh, and Amy Pavel. 2025. Lotus: Creating short videos from long videos with abstractive and extractive summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.07096

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin...

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Yapei Chang, Kyle Lo, Tanya Goyal, and Mohit Iyyer. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=7Ttk3RzDeu Booookscore: A systematic exploration of book-length summarization in the era of LLM s . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Gurucharan, Kripabandhu Ghosh, and Abhijnan Chakraborty

    Garima Chhikara, Anurag Sharma, V. Gurucharan, Kripabandhu Ghosh, and Abhijnan Chakraborty. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.15809 Lamsum: Amplifying voices against harassment through llm guided extractive summarization of user incident reports . Preprint, arXiv:2406.15809

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Edward Collins, Isabelle Augenstein, and Sebastian Riedel. 2017. A supervised approach to extractive summarisation of scientific papers. In Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL 2017), pages 195--205

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Salil Dabholkar, Yuvraj Patadia, and Prajyoti Dsilva. 2016. Automatic document summarization using sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Informatics and Analytics, pages 1--6

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    G \" u nes Erkan and Dragomir R. Radev. 2004. Lexrank: Graph-based lexical centrality as salience in text summarization. J. Artif. Intell. Res., 22:457--479

    work page 2004

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Bennett, Claudia Hauff, and Mounia Lalmas

    Azin Ghazimatin, Ekaterina Garmash, Gustavo Penha, Kristen Sheets, Martin Achenbach, Oguz Semerci, Remi Galvez, Marcus Tannenberg, Sahitya Mantravadi, Divya Narayanan, Ofeliya Kalaydzhyan, Douglas Cole, Ben Carterette, Ann Clifton, Paul N. Bennett, Claudia Hauff, and Mounia La...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Go Irie, Takashi Satou, Akira Kojima, Toshihiko Yamasaki, and Kiyoharu Aizawa. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1145/1873951.1874092 Automatic trailer generation . In Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, MM '10, page 839–842, New York, NY, USA. Associati...

    2010

  3. [11]

    Zahidul Islam, Sujoy Paul, and Mrigank Rochan. 2024. Unsupervised video highlight detection by learning from audio and visual recurrence. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.13933

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Renlong Jie, Xiaojun Meng, Xin Jiang, and Qun Liu. 2024. Unsupervised extractive summarization with learnable length control strategies. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 18372--18380

    2024

  5. [13]

    Rosie Jones, Hamed Zamani, Markus Schedl, Ching-Wei Chen, Sravana Reddy, Ann Clifton, Jussi Karlgren, Helia Hashemi, Aasish Pappu, Zahra Nazari, et al. 2021. Current challenges and future directions in podcast information access. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SI...

    2021

  6. [14]

    Frederic Kirstein, Terry Ruas, Robert Kratel, and Bela Gipp. 2024. Tell me what i need to know: Exploring llm-based (personalized) abstractive multi-source meeting summarization. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Industr...

    2024

  7. [15]

    Jie Lei, Tamara L Berg, and Mohit Bansal. 2021. Detecting moments and highlights in videos via natural language queries. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:11846--11858

    2021

  8. [16]

    Yang Liu, Chenguang Zhu, and Michael Zeng. 2022 a . End-to-end segmentation-based news summarization. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 544--554

    2022

  9. [17]

    Ye Liu, Siyuan Li, Yang Wu, Chang-Wen Chen, Ying Shan, and Xiaohu Qie. 2022 b . Umt: Unified multi-modal transformers for joint video moment retrieval and highlight detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 3042--3051

    2022

  10. [18]

    Michal Lukasik, Boris Dadachev, Kishore Papineni, and Gon c alo Sim \ o es. 2020. Text segmentation by cross segment attention. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4707--4716

    2020

  11. [19]

    Abhijit Manatkar, Ashlesha Akella, Parthivi Gupta, and Krishnasuri Narayanam. 2024. Quis: Question-guided insights generation for automated exploratory data analysis. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Industry Track, pag...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Orest Rehusevych and Taras Firman. 2020. movie2trailer: Unsupervised trailer generation using anomaly detection

    2020

  13. [21]

    Fabian Retkowski and Alex Waibel. 2024. From text segmentation to smart chaptering: A novel benchmark for structuring video transcriptions. In Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), p...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Yong Rui, Anoop Gupta, and Alex Acero. 2000. Automatically extracting highlights for tv baseball programs. In Proceedings of the eighth ACM international conference on Multimedia, pages 105--115

    2000

  15. [23]

    Alireza Salemi, Sheshera Mysore, Michael Bendersky, and Hamed Zamani. 2023. Lamp: When large language models meet personalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11406

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Simon, Courtney L

    Alexander J. Simon, Courtney L. Gallen, David A. Ziegler, Jyoti Mishra, Elysa J. Marco, Joaquin A. Anguera, and Adam Gazzaley. 2023. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcogn.2023.1207428 Quantifying attention span across the lifespan . Frontiers in Cognition, 2

    2023

  17. [25]

    Smith, Dhiraj Joshi, Benoit Huet, Winston Hsu, and Jozef Cota

    John R. Smith, Dhiraj Joshi, Benoit Huet, Winston Hsu, and Jozef Cota. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1145/3123266.3127906 Harnessing a.i. for augmenting creativity: Application to movie trailer creation . In Proceedings of the 25th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, MM '17...

    2017

  18. [26]

    Yale Song, Miriam Redi, Jordi Vallmitjana, and Alejandro Jaimes. 2016. To click or not to click: Automatic selection of beautiful thumbnails from videos. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM international on conference on information and knowledge management, pages 659--668

    2016

  19. [27]

    Min Sun, Ali Farhadi, and Steve Seitz. 2014. Ranking domain-specific highlights by analyzing edited videos. In Computer Vision--ECCV 2014: 13th European Conference, Zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, Proceedings, Part I 13, pages 787--802. Springer

    2014

  20. [28]

    Edgar Tanaka. 2022. Multilingual abstractive summarization of podcasts with longformers. Master's thesis, State University of Campinas, Institute of Computing

    2022

  21. [29]

    Haopeng Zhang, Xiao Liu, and Jiawei Zhang. 2023. https://openreview.net/forum?id=pfeod9GPAw Extractive summarization via chat GPT for faithful summary generation . In The 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

    2023

  22. [30]

    Winstead Zhu, Md Iftekhar Tanveer, Yang Janet Liu, Seye Ojumu, and Rosie Jones. 2023. https://doi.org/10.21437/Interspeech.2023-304 Lightweight and efficient spoken language identification of long-form audio . In Interspeech 2023, pages 496--500

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    Winstead Xingran Zhu. 2021. Hotspot detection for automatic podcast trailer generation. Master's thesis, Uppsala University, Department of Linguistics and Philology

    2021

  24. [32]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  25. [33]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.