MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293797358 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2208.12924

Quantifying French Document Complexity

2022· preprint· en· W4293797358 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicText Readability and Simplification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceContrast (vision)Task (project management)Natural language processingRange (aeronautics)Linguistic sequence complexityMeasure (data warehouse)Artificial intelligenceInformation retrievalLinguisticsData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measuring a document's complexity level is an open challenge, particularly when one is working on a diverse corpus of documents rather than comparing several documents on a similar topic or working on a language other than English. In this paper, we define a methodology to measure the complexity of French documents, using a new general and diversified corpus of texts, the "French Canadian complexity level corpus", and a wide range of metrics. We compare different learning algorithms to this task and contrast their performances and their observations on which characteristics of the texts are more significant to their complexity. Our results show that our methodology gives a general-purpose measurement of text complexity in French.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.221
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.018 · 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