Content Words and Readability in Students’ Thesis Findings
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
This study investigates the content words and readability in bachelor’s thesis findings in the English Literature Program at the University of Sumatera Utara. Qualitative analysis was applied in this study. The data for this study were content words and sentences taken from the data sources of 13 bachelor’s thesis findings. The content words were collected using a lexical density online tool, and the data for readability was collected and analyzed using an online Flesch Reading Ease tool. The results show that the lexical density of the content words ranges from 50.47% – 57.5%. Whilst the readability of the 13 texts range from 19.1 – 61.7. The average score of content word density indicates that the theses’ findings present concise information as represented in scientific writing, and the readability style ranges from "very difficult to read” to “standard readable”. In conclusion, these findings can be categorized as densely written language and content words, supported by college students' increasingly intricate choice of words and sentences frequently read.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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