MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Strategies for Arabic Readability Modeling

2024· article· en· W4402671017 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicText Readability and Simplification
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYork UniversityNew York University Abu Dhabi
KeywordsReadabilityArabicComputer scienceNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automatic readability assessment is relevant to building NLP applications for education, content analysis, and accessibility.However, Arabic readability assessment is a challenging task due to Arabic's morphological richness and limited readability resources.In this paper, we present a set of experimental results on Arabic readability assessment using a diverse range of approaches, from rule-based methods to Arabic pretrained language models.We report our results on a newly created corpus at different textual granularity levels (words and sentence fragments).Our results show that combining different techniques yields the best results, achieving an overall macro F 1 score of 86.7 at the word level and 87.9 at the fragment level on a blind test set.We make our code, data, and pretrained models publicly available. 1

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicText Readability and SimplificationFrench-language works237,207