We consider the textual profiles of different fanfiction maturity ratings, how they vary across fan groups, and how this relates to reader engagement metrics. Previous studies have shown that fanfiction writing is motivated by a combination of admiration for and frustration with the fan object. These findings emerge when looking at fanfiction as a whole, as well as when it is divided into subgroups, also called fandoms. However, maturity ratings are used to indicate the intended audience of the fanfiction, as well as whether the story includes mature themes and explicit scenes. Since these ratings can be used to filter readers and writers, they can also be seen as a proxy for different reader/writer motivations and desires. We find that explicit fanfiction in particular has a distinct textual profile when compared to other maturity ratings. These findings thus nuance our understanding of reader/writer motivations in fanfiction communities, and also highlights the influence of the community norms and fan behavior more generally on these cultural products.

Kalaallisut, also known as (West) Greenlandic, poses a number of unique challenges to contemporary natural language processing (NLP). In particular, the language has historically lacked benchmarking datasets and robust evaluation of specific NLP tasks, such as neural machine translation (NMT). In this paper, we present a new benchmark dataset for Greenlandic to Danish NMT comprising over 1.2m words of Greenlandic and 2.1m words of parallel Danish translations. We provide initial metrics for models trained on this dataset and conclude by suggesting how these findings can be taken forward to other NLP tasks for the Greenlandic language.

Automatic abstractive text summarization is a challenging task in the field of natural language processing. This paper presents a model for domain-specific sum marization for Danish news articles, Dan SumT5; an mT5 model fine-tuned on a cleaned subset of the DaNewsroom dataset consisting of abstractive summary-article pairs. The resulting state-of-the-art model is evaluated both quantitatively and qualitatively, using ROUGE and BERTScore metrics and human rankings of the summaries. We find that although model refinements increase quantitative and qualitative performance, the model is still prone to factual errors. We discuss the limitations of current evaluation methods for automatic abstractive summarization and underline the need for improved metrics and transparency within the field. We suggest that future work should employ methods for detecting and reducing errors in model output and methods for referenceless evaluation of summaries.