MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025131939 · doi:10.7202/603126ar

Issues Related to Text Comprehensibility: The Future of Readability

2009· article· en· W2025131939 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Beverley L. Zakaluk, S. Jay Samuels

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue québécoise de linguistique · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReadabilityMeaning (existential)Task (project management)Point (geometry)Context (archaeology)Computer scienceLinguisticsComprehensionPsychologyHistoryEngineeringMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper places readability in an historical context, reviews the development of present day formulas and their liabilities, explores other factors that influence meaning making, and considers comprehensibility from the point of view of the educator. The authors conclude that determining how easy or how difficult a particular book may be for a particular reader is a complex task. There may be a time when it is possible to develop a formula that includes all elements that impact upon readability, but at present, estimating text comprehensibility requires personal judment.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score0.652

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations31
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue québécoise de linguistiqueSame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207