Prose and cons of scholarly articles: How readability tests expose poor knowledge mobilization in academic publications
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current literature shows that poor and unclear writing is a significant barrier for non-academic audiences. Readability research is a growing interest among STEM and health science fields; however, the humanities and social science disciplines are neglected. To address this gap, articles from the humanities and social science disciplines were analyzed using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and the Gunning FOG Index (GFI) readability tests. Results show that the FRE mean score for all analyzed articles is 29.04, and the total GFI mean score is 18.02, meaning they are extremely difficult to read and often require a post-secondary education for adequate comprehension. Empirically driven, quantitative articles had no significant difference in readability than sense-making, qualitive articles. Results also show that the humanities and social sciences have readability similar or equivalent to STEM and health science fields. ©Journal of Professional Communication, all rights reserved.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it