MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409068941 · doi:10.18260/1-2-1153-52784

Evaluation of the Accessibility of Engineering Vocabulary

2025· article· en· W4409068941 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicText Readability and Simplification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVocabularyComputer scienceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Do engineering instructional materials at the university level contain identifiable barriers to success unrelated to course objectives?This is a growing concern as the population of students becomes more diverse.And if there are barriers, how prevalent is this issue and can these barriers be characterized in a way that allows the instructor to easily identify and remove or mitigate them?In response to these questions, a research study is being conducted to at the University of Toronto to look at the accessibility of the language used on assessment instruments, specifically final exams.40 student volunteers were involved in the study.The preliminary data suggests that one of the obstacles to mitigating barriers based on language will be the student's own assessment of their language proficiency.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.495
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicText Readability and SimplificationFrench-language works237,207