MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416957045 · doi:10.1145/3774399.3774406

Semantic, Orthographic, and Morphological Biases in Humans' Wordle Gameplay

2025· article· en· W4416957045 on OpenAlexaff
Jiadong Liang, Aya Kabbara, Cindy H. Liu, Ruikun Luo, Kina Kim, Michael Guerzhoy

Bibliographic record

VenueAI Matters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsIBM (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutcome (game theory)Game theoryKey (lock)Natural (archaeology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We show that human players' game play in the game of Wordle is influenced by the semantics, orthography, and morphology of the player's previous guesses. We demonstrate this influence by comparing actual human players' guesses to near-optimal guesses, showing that human players' guesses are biased to be similar to previous guesses semantically, orthographically, and morphologically.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAI MattersSame topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207