The validity and applicability of two modified cloze procedures (beginning of the page procedure and "instant" beginning of the page procedure) measured against the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test and equated with the cloze procedure and Fry Readability Graph
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This correlational study examined the Beginning of the Page Procedure (B.O.P.P) and the "instant" Beginning of the Page Procedure as measures for assessing readability: One hundred ninety-six grade nine students (106 male and 90 female) took part in the study and their scores on the cloze procedure, the B.O.P.P. and the "instant" B.O.P.P. were correlated with the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test Form A - Blue Level (hereafter referred to as the Stanford Diagnostic ). The Stanford Diagnostic was used as the anchor test and the students were randomly assigned to each of the three groups; Analyses included the calculation of means associated with the Stanford Diagnostic scores for each subgroup, and analysis of the variance between sexes within each subgroup. An equivalency table is provided which estimates the Stanford Diagnostic scores for a given cloze procedure, B.O.P.P. or "instant" B.O.P.P. score; Using the Stanford Diagnostic grade score equivalent to 40 percent on the cloze procedure, the readability level of the passage was determined. This was then compared to the readability level estimated by the Fry Graph. Respective correlations of .53 and .67 were found between the B.O.P.P. and "instant" B.O.P.P. with the Stanford Diagnostic suggesting both are good indicators of the students' ability to handle the given passage. Similarly the Fry Graph and the Stanford Diagnostic, grade score equal to 40 percent on the cloze procedure, found the passages to be at virtually the same level of difficulty. All results however, were limited to the passage studied and should not be generalized to other materials. When a significance level of .05 was used no significant difference was found between the male and female performance levels on any of the tests administered.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".