Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 cited by

All Public Voices Are Equal, But Are Some More Equal Than Others to LLMs?

T0 review · 2 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-05-10 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read LLMs produce lower-quality summaries of identical public comments when attributed to street vendors rather than financial analysts.

desk verdict The paper shows occupation-based differences in how LLMs summarize public comments, with a clean counterfactual design that holds text fixed, but the metrics for meaning and tone need explicit validation to rule out artifacts. read the letter →

arxiv 2604.17247 v1 submitted 2026-04-19 cs.CY cs.HC

Sola Kim , Marco A. Janssen , Jieshu Wang , Ame Min-Venditti , Neha Karanjia , John M. Anderies This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CYcs.HC
keywords LLMspubliccommentsAIfairnesssummarizationbiasoccupationsocioeconomicstatusfederalrulemakinggovernment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tests whether large language models treat public comments equally by holding the comment text fixed and changing only the attributed identity of the commenter, including race, gender, and occupation. It finds that occupation is the only consistent factor: comments from street vendors are summarized with less preserved meaning, simpler language, and altered emotional tone compared to the same comments from financial analysts. This holds across multiple models, names, and prompts. The result matters because federal agencies are using LLMs to process comments in rulemaking, where equal treatment of input is essential for fair regulation. Other identities like race showed inconsistent effects tied to specific names, and gender showed none.

What carries the argument

The counterfactual experiment design that isolates identity signals by keeping comment content fixed and varying only demographic attributions like occupation.

What would settle it

Replacing the automated metrics for meaning preservation with human judgments of summary fidelity and finding that occupation-based differences disappear would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

When the content of public comments is held constant and only the occupation of the commenter is varied, LLMs generate summaries that preserve less of the original meaning, use simpler language, and shift emotional tone for comments attributed to street vendors compared to financial analysts. This differential treatment is consistent across all tested models, names, prompts, and regulatory contexts, while race and gender effects are absent or inconsistent.

Load-bearing premise

The observed differences in summary quality are caused by the occupation attribution labels themselves, not by correlations with other unmeasured factors or by the specific ways meaning preservation and tone are measured.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a large-scale counterfactual experiment on whether LLMs used by federal agencies for summarizing public comments during notice-and-comment rulemaking exhibit bias based on commenter demographics. Holding comment text fixed and varying only attributed race, gender, and occupation (as a socioeconomic signal) across 182 comments, 32 identity conditions, and eight models (yielding >106,000 summaries), the authors find that only occupation produces consistent effects: comments attributed to a street vendor receive summaries with reduced meaning preservation, simpler language, and shifted emotional tone relative to those attributed to a financial analyst. This pattern holds across names, prompts, models, and regulatory contexts. Race effects are inconsistent and appear name-token driven; gender effects are absent. Surface writing errors have negligible impact, while argument substance matters. The work concludes that socioeconomic signals require attention in AI fairness evaluations and that model selection implicitly selects fairness levels not currently assessed under frameworks like FedRAMP.

Significance. If the results hold after metric validation, the findings are significant for AI governance and democratic participation, as they indicate that LLMs processing citizen input to regulation may systematically disadvantage lower-SES voices through altered summaries. The counterfactual design, scale, and multi-model/multi-context testing provide a replicable template for auditing civic AI systems. Credit is due for isolating occupation as the sole consistent signal and for showing that injected spelling/grammar errors do not drive outcomes, focusing attention on substantive content rather than surface features. The implication that procurement processes should incorporate fairness benchmarks is policy-relevant.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods (summary quality metrics)] The central claim that occupation attribution causes reduced meaning preservation, simpler language, and tone shifts rests on the validity of the three quantitative metrics. The manuscript does not define these metrics (e.g., embedding model or cosine similarity for meaning preservation; lexical features or readability scores for simplicity; sentiment lexicon or embedding-based tone measure), nor does it report validation against human judgments or controls for confounds such as summary length or vocabulary distribution. This is load-bearing for the occupation effect, as metric artifacts could produce the observed differences even if core propositions are retained.
  2. [Results (consistency across conditions)] The abstract states that the occupation pattern 'held across all names, prompts, models, and regulatory contexts,' yet no statistical tests, effect sizes, confidence intervals, or adjustments for multiple comparisons are described. With 106,000 summaries, formal inference is required to distinguish consistent effects from descriptive patterns or prompt-label interactions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The two major comments identify areas where additional methodological transparency and statistical rigor will strengthen the manuscript. We address each point below and will incorporate the suggested revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods (summary quality metrics)] The central claim that occupation attribution causes reduced meaning preservation, simpler language, and tone shifts rests on the validity of the three quantitative metrics. The manuscript does not define these metrics (e.g., embedding model or cosine similarity for meaning preservation; lexical features or readability scores for simplicity; sentiment lexicon or embedding-based tone measure), nor does it report validation against human judgments or controls for confounds such as summary length or vocabulary distribution. This is load-bearing for the occupation effect, as metric artifacts could produce the observed differences even if core propositions are retained.

    Authors: We agree that explicit metric definitions, human validation, and confound controls are necessary for full transparency. The revised manuscript will expand the Methods section to specify the embedding model and cosine-similarity procedure for meaning preservation, the exact readability formulas and lexical-diversity measures for simplicity, and the sentiment-analysis approach for tone. We will also report a human validation study on a stratified subset of summaries and include regression controls for summary length and vocabulary distribution. These additions directly address the concern that metric artifacts could drive the occupation effect. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results (consistency across conditions)] The abstract states that the occupation pattern 'held across all names, prompts, models, and regulatory contexts,' yet no statistical tests, effect sizes, confidence intervals, or adjustments for multiple comparisons are described. With 106,000 summaries, formal inference is required to distinguish consistent effects from descriptive patterns or prompt-label interactions.

    Authors: The manuscript presents descriptive consistency checks across the full design, but we concur that formal statistical inference will improve rigor. The revision will add regression models treating identity attributes as predictors of each metric, report standardized effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals, and apply appropriate multiple-comparison corrections. These analyses will quantify the consistency of the occupation effect while controlling for prompt, model, and context interactions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity in empirical counterfactual design

full rationale

The paper is a purely empirical study that holds comment text fixed while varying only demographic attribution labels across 182 comments, 32 conditions, and eight LLMs, then measures summary differences via direct comparison. No equations, fitted parameters, first-principles derivations, or predictions appear; the central claim (occupation produces consistent differential treatment) is reported as an observed pattern across all tested prompts, models, and contexts rather than derived from any self-referential definition or self-citation chain. The design is self-contained against external benchmarks because the counterfactual isolates the attribution variable and the results are falsifiable by replication on the same inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on empirical measurements of summary differences under controlled identity attributions; no new free parameters, invented entities, or non-standard axioms are introduced beyond routine assumptions about experimental controls and text similarity.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Summary quality can be validly quantified by preservation of original meaning, language simplicity, and emotional tone
    This assumption underpins the interpretation of differential treatment as a fairness issue.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of All Public Voices Are Equal, But Are Some More Equal Than Others to LLMs?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2604.17247

@misc{pith2026260417247,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: All Public Voices Are Equal, But Are Some More Equal Than Others to LLMs?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2604.17247}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2604.17247}
}
read the original abstract

Federal agencies are increasingly deploying large language models (LLMs) to process public comments submitted during notice-and-comment rulemaking, the primary mechanism through which citizens influence federal regulation. Whether these systems treat all public input equally remains largely untested. Using a counterfactual design, we held comment content constant and varied only the commenter's demographic attribution -- race, gender, and socioeconomic status -- to test whether eight LLMs available for federal use produce differential summaries of identical comments. We processed 182 public comments across 32 identity conditions, generating over 106,000 summaries. Occupation was the only identity signal to produce consistent differential treatment: the same comment attributed to a street vendor, compared to a financial analyst, received a summary that preserved less of the original meaning, used simpler language, and shifted emotional tone. This pattern held across all names, prompts, models, and regulatory contexts tested. Race effects were inconsistent and appeared driven by specific name tokens rather than racial categories; gender effects were absent. Writing quality predicted summarization outcomes through argument substance rather than surface mechanics; experimentally injected spelling and grammar errors had negligible effects. The magnitude of occupation-based differential treatment varied by model provider, meaning that selecting a model implicitly selects a level of fairness -- a dimension that current procurement frameworks such as FedRAMP do not evaluate. These findings suggest that socioeconomic signals warrant attention in AI fairness assessments for government information systems, and that fairness benchmarks could be incorporated into existing federal IT procurement processes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.17247 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Only Occupation Produced Supported Effects on Summarization Outcomes. Each panel shows the estimated coefficient (βˆ) and 95% Wald confidence interval for one identity signal (rows) on one summarization outcome (columns). The dashed line marks zero (no effect). Green points indicate effects that were both statistically significant and Bayesian-supported (BF10 ≥ 3); amber points were statistically significant but Bay… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Occupation Effect Held Up Under Every Test; Race and Gender Did Not. Each point shows the estimated coefficient for a identity signal on similarity (∆Sim), re-estimated under different conditions. The vertical axis measures how much the signal changed the summary relative to baseline; the dashed line marks zero (no change). Three panels test robustness: (a) whether the effect depends on which specific names were… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. LLMs Responded to Argument Substance, Not Surface Errors. Rows represent text signals: the top four capture argument substance (what was argued and how), Mechanics and Error Injection capture surface quality (spelling, grammar), and the bottom row shows the occupation (SES) effect from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Occupation Gap May Widen for Lower-Quality Comments (Exploratory). Each panel shows one summarization outcome across four writing quality quartiles (horizontal axis). The vertical axis shows the mean raw score for that outcome. Two lines compare comments attributed…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Name-Level Variation Was as Large as Race-Level Variation. Each point represents one of the 16 names used in the study, showing how much that name’s summaries deviated from baseline overall. Names are grouped by racial category, with diamonds marking race-group average…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: All Models Showed Occupation-Based Differential Treatment, but the Magnitude Varied by Provider. The horizontal axis groups models by provider; the vertical axis shows the occupation (SES) gap on similarity, meaning the difference in how faithfully a comment was summar…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Forest plot of race effect sizes (Cohen’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p077_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Who Gets Heeded? An Obligation-Level Audit of Responsiveness in EPA Rulemaking

    cs.CY 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Obligation-level auditing of 70,075 EPA comments shows comments are modestly linked to rule revisions, while organization-heavy dockets skew toward editorial rather than substantive changes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 110 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Cirino, and Milena Keller-Margulis

    Yusra Ahmed, Shawn Kent, Paul T. Cirino, and Milena Keller-Margulis. The Not-So-Simple View of Writing in Struggling Readers/Writers.Reading & Writing Quarterly, 38(3):272–296, May 2022. ISSN 1057-3569. doi: 10.1080/10573569.2021.1948374

    work page doi:10.1080/10573569.2021.1948374 2022

  2. [2]

    Alahmari, Lawrence Hall, Peter R

    Saeed S. Alahmari, Lawrence Hall, Peter R. Mouton, and Dmitry Goldgof. Large language models robustness against perturbation.Scientific Reports, 16(1):346, November 2025. ISSN 2045-2322. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-29770-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-025-29770-0 2025

  3. [3]

    Measuring gender and racial biases in large language models: Intersectional evidence from automated resume evaluation , volume =

    Jiafu An, Difang Huang, Chen Lin, and Mingzhu Tai. Measuring gender and racial biases in large language models: Intersectional evidence from automated resume evaluation.PNAS Nexus, 4(3), February 2025. doi: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf089

    work page doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf089 2025

  4. [4]

    Understanding Intrinsic Socioeconomic Biases in Large Language Models

    Mina Arzaghi, Florian Carichon, and Golnoosh Farnadi. Understanding Intrinsic Socioeconomic Biases in Large Language Models. InProceedings of the 2024 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pages 49–60. AAAI Press, February 2025

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    API Endpoints

    Ask Sage. API Endpoints. https://docs.asksage.ai/docs/api-documentation/api-endpoints.html, January 2026

    work page 2026

  6. [6]

    Affective Coherence Monitoring for Transformer-Based Language Models

    Yuntao Bai, Saurav Kadavath, Sandipan Kundu, Amanda Askell, Jackson Kernion, Andy Jones, Anna Chen, Anna Goldie, Azalia Mirhoseini, Cameron McKinnon, Carol Chen, Catherine Olsson, Christopher Olah, Danny Hernandez, Dawn Drain, Deep Ganguli, Dustin Li, Eli Tran-Johnson, Ethan Perez, Jamie Kerr, Jared Mueller, Jeffrey Ladish, Joshua Landau, Kamal Ndousse, K...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Barr, Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers, and Harry J

    Dale J. Barr, Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers, and Harry J. Tily. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal.Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3): 255–278, April 2013. ISSN 0749-596X. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001 2013

  8. [8]

    Barrot and Joan Y

    Jessie S. Barrot and Joan Y. Agdeppa. Complexity, accuracy, and fluency as indices of college- level L2 writers’ proficiency.Assessing Writing, 47:100510, January 2021. ISSN 1075-2935. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2020.100510

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asw.2020.100510 2021

Show all 110 references
  1. [9]

    Jill A. Bennett. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT): Guidelines for Reporting Randomized Trials.Nursing Research, 54(2):128, March 2005. ISSN 0029-6562

    2005

  2. [10]

    AreEmilyandGregMoreEmployableThanLakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination.American Economic Review, 94(4):991–1013, September 2004

    MarianneBertrandandSendhilMullainathan. AreEmilyandGregMoreEmployableThanLakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination.American Economic Review, 94(4):991–1013, September 2004. ISSN 0002-8282. doi: 10.1257/0002828042002561

    2004 doi

  3. [11]

    Should We Use Characteristics of Conver- sation to Measure Grammatical Complexity in L2 Writing Development?TESOL Quarterly, 45 (1):5–35, March 2011

    Douglas Biber, Bethany Gray, and Kornwipa Poonpon. Should We Use Characteristics of Conver- sation to Measure Grammatical Complexity in L2 Writing Development?TESOL Quarterly, 45 (1):5–35, March 2011. ISSN 0039-8322, 1545-7249. doi: 10.5054/tq.2011.244483

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    Paul D. Bliese. Group Size, ICC Values, and Group-Level Correlations: A Simulation.Organiza- tional Research Methods, 1998. doi: 10.1177/109442819814001

    1998 doi

  5. [13]

    SafeforDemocracy

    ReeveT.Bull. MakingtheAdministrativeState"SafeforDemocracy": ATheoreticalandPractical Analysis of Citizen Participation in Agency Decisionmaking.Administrative Law Review, 65(3): 611–664, 2013. ISSN 0001-8368

    2013

  6. [14]

    Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity.Journal of Second Language Writing, 26:42–65, December 2014

    Bram Bulté and Alex Housen. Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity.Journal of Second Language Writing, 26:42–65, December 2014. ISSN 1060-3743. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.005. 21

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    Isabel Cachola, Daniel Khashabi, and Mark Dredze. Evaluating the Evaluators: Are readability metrics good measures of readability? In Christos Christodoulopoulos, Tanmoy Chakraborty, Carolyn Rose, and Violet Peng, editors,Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods...

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    Carpusor and William E

    Adrian G. Carpusor and William E. Loges. Rental Discrimination and Ethnicity in Names.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(4):934–952, 2006. ISSN 1559-1816. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006. 00050.x

    2006 doi

  9. [17]

    Path-Specific Counterfactual Fairness

    Silvia Chiappa. Path-Specific Counterfactual Fairness. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 7801–7808, July 2019. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33017801

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Transparency and Public Participation in the Rulemaking Process: Recommendations for the New Administration.George Washington Law Review, June 2009

    Cary Coglianese, Heather Kilmartin, and Evan Mendelson. Transparency and Public Participation in the Rulemaking Process: Recommendations for the New Administration.George Washington Law Review, June 2009

    2009

  11. [19]

    Routledge, New York, 2 edition, May 2013

    Jacob Cohen.Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Routledge, New York, 2 edition, May 2013. ISBN 978-0-203-77158-7. doi: 10.4324/9780203771587

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    Kimberle Crenshaw. Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(8), 1989

    1989

  13. [21]

    Crossley

    Scott A. Crossley. Linguistic features in writing quality and development: An overview.Journal of Writing Research, 11(3):415–443, February 2020. ISSN 2294-3307. doi: 10.17239/jowr-2020.11. 03.01

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    Crossley, Franklin Bradfield, and Analynn Bustamante

    Scott A. Crossley, Franklin Bradfield, and Analynn Bustamante. Using human judgments to examine the validity of automated grammar, syntax, and mechanical errors in writing.Journal of Writing Research, 11(2):251–270, October2019. ISSN2294-3307. doi: 10.17239/jowr-2019.11.02.01

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    de Figueiredo

    John M. de Figueiredo. E-Rulemaking: Bringing Data to Theory at the Federal Communications Commission.Duke Law Journal, 55(5):969–993, 2006. ISSN 0012-7086

    2006

  16. [24]

    Deliberating Like a State: Locating Public Administration Within the Delibera- tive System.Political Studies, 72(3):924–943, August 2024

    Rikki Dean. Deliberating Like a State: Locating Public Administration Within the Delibera- tive System.Political Studies, 72(3):924–943, August 2024. ISSN 0032-3217. doi: 10.1177/ 00323217231166285

    2024

  17. [25]

    An Investigation of the Iranian EFL Learners’ Perceptions Towards the Most Common Writing Problems.Sage Open, 10(2):2158244020919523, April 2020

    Ali Derakhshan and Roghayeh Karimian Shirejini. An Investigation of the Iranian EFL Learners’ Perceptions Towards the Most Common Writing Problems.Sage Open, 10(2):2158244020919523, April 2020. ISSN 2158-2440. doi: 10.1177/2158244020919523

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    The impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on the public comments process

    DocketScope. The impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on the public comments process. White paper, DocketScope, Inc., 2023. https://www.docketscope.com/ai-and-public-comments-process- ebook

    2023

  19. [27]

    Cheryl A. Engber. The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(2):139–155, May 1995. ISSN 1060-3743. doi: 10.1016/ 1060-3743(95)90004-7

    1995

  20. [28]

    Fabbri, Wojciech Kryściński, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Dragomir Radev

    Alexander R. Fabbri, Wojciech Kryściński, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, Richard Socher, and Dragomir Radev. SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluation.Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:391–409, April 2021. ISSN 2307-387X. doi: 10.1162/tacl_a...

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    Bias of AI-generated content: An examination of news produced by large language models.Scientific Reports, 14, September 2023

    Xiao Fang, Shangkun Che, Minjia Mao, Hongzhe Zhang, Ming Zhao, and Xiaohang Zhao. Bias of AI-generated content: An examination of news produced by large language models.Scientific Reports, 14, September 2023. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-55686-2

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Federal Agencies are Publishing Fewer but Larger Regulations

    Mark Febrizio. Federal Agencies are Publishing Fewer but Larger Regulations. Technical report, Regulatory Studies Center, George Washington University, 2021. 22

    2021

  23. [31]

    FedRAMP Marketplace

    Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP). FedRAMP Marketplace. https://marketplace.fedramp.gov/products, January 2026

    2026

  24. [32]

    Gaebler, Sharad Goel, Aziz Huq, and Prasanna Tambe

    Johann D. Gaebler, Sharad Goel, Aziz Huq, and Prasanna Tambe. Auditing large language models for race & gender disparities: Implications for artificial intelligence-based hiring.Behavioral Science & Policy, 10(2):46–55, October 2024. ISSN 2379-4607. doi: 10.1177/23794607251320229

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    Chi, and Alex Beutel

    Sahaj Garg, Vincent Perot, Nicole Limtiaco, Ankur Taly, Ed H. Chi, and Alex Beutel. Counterfac- tual Fairness in Text Classification through Robustness. InProceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, AIES ’19, pages 219–226, New York, NY, USA, January

    2019

  26. [34]

    ISBN 978-1-4503-6324-2

    Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 978-1-4503-6324-2. doi: 10.1145/3306618. 3317950

    doi

  27. [35]

    Thomas Mesnard Gemma Team, Cassidy Hardin, Robert Dadashi, Surya Bhupatiraju, Laurent Sifre, Morgane Rivière, Mihir Sanjay Kale, Juliette Love, Pouya Tafti, Léonard Hussenot, and et al. Gemma. 2024. doi: 10.34740/KAGGLE/M/3301. https://www.kaggle.com/m/3301

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    Workplace English Lan- guage Needs and their Pedagogical Implications in ESP.International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 10(3):202–212, June 2021

    Danebeth Tristeza Glomo-Narzoles and Donna Tristeza Glomo-Palermo. Workplace English Lan- guage Needs and their Pedagogical Implications in ESP.International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 10(3):202–212, June 2021. ISSN 2306-0646. doi: 10.18488/journal.23....

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    Policing, Democratic Participation, and the Reproduction of Asymmetric Citizenship.American Political Science Review, 117(1):263–279, February 2023

    Yanilda González and Lindsay Mayka. Policing, Democratic Participation, and the Reproduction of Asymmetric Citizenship.American Political Science Review, 117(1):263–279, February 2023. ISSN 0003-0554, 1537-5943. doi: 10.1017/S0003055422000636

    2023 doi

  30. [38]

    Thompson.Why Deliberative Democracy?Princeton University Press, December 2016

    Amy Gutmann and Dennis F. Thompson.Why Deliberative Democracy?Princeton University Press, December 2016. ISBN 978-1-4008-2633-9. doi: 10.1515/9781400826339

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    Who’s Asking? Investigating Bias Through the Lens of Disability-Framed Queries in LLMs

    Vishnu Hari, Kalpana Panda, Srikant Panda, Amit Agarwal, and Hitesh Laxmichand Patel. Who’s Asking? Investigating Bias Through the Lens of Disability-Framed Queries in LLMs. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 6644–6655, 2025

    2025

  32. [40]

    More than a Feeling: Accuracy and Application of Sentiment Analysis.International Journal of Research in Marketing, 40(1):75–87, March 2023

    Jochen Hartmann, Mark Heitmann, Christian Siebert, and Christina Schamp. More than a Feeling: Accuracy and Application of Sentiment Analysis.International Journal of Research in Marketing, 40(1):75–87, March 2023. ISSN 0167-8116. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2022.05.005

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    Does a Process-Genre Approach Help Improve Students’ Argumentative Writing in English as a Foreign Language? Findings From an Intervention Study

    Yu Huang and Lawrence Jun Zhang. Does a Process-Genre Approach Help Improve Students’ Argumentative Writing in English as a Foreign Language? Findings From an Intervention Study. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 36(4):339–364, July 2020. ISSN 1057-3569. doi: 10.1080/10573569. 2019.1649223

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    Occupational Prestige, December 2019

    Bradley Hughes, David Condon, and Sanjay Srivastava. Occupational Prestige, December 2019. URLhttps://osf.io/ngk2t

    2019

  35. [43]

    Hughes, Sanjay Srivastava, Magdalena Leszko, and David M

    Bradley T. Hughes, Sanjay Srivastava, Magdalena Leszko, and David M. Condon. Occupational Prestige: The Status Component of Socioeconomic Status.Collabra: Psychology, 10(1), January

  36. [44]

    doi: 10.1525/collabra.92882

    doi

  37. [45]

    Gpt-4o system card, 2024

    Aaron Hurst, Adam Lerer, Adam P Goucher, Adam Perelman, Aditya Ramesh, Aidan Clark, AJ Ostrow, Akila Welihinda, Alan Hayes, Alec Radford, et al. Gpt-4o system card, 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    The Public Trust: Administrative Legitimacy and Democratic Lawmaking

    Katharine Jackson. The Public Trust: Administrative Legitimacy and Democratic Lawmaking. Connecticut Law Review, 56(1):1–86, 2023–2024

    2023

  39. [47]

    Johnson, Joseph H

    Carla J. Johnson, Joseph H. Beitchman, and E. B. Brownlie. Twenty-Year Follow-Up of Chil- dren With and Without Speech-Language Impairments: Family, Educational, Occupational, and Quality of Life Outcomes.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19(1):51–65, February

  40. [48]

    doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2009/08-0083)

    2009 doi

  41. [49]

    Robustly Improving LLM Fairness in Realistic Settings via Interpretability, June 2025

    Adam Karvonen and Samuel Marks. Robustly Improving LLM Fairness in Realistic Settings via Interpretability, June 2025. 23

    2025

  42. [50]

    Haymarket Books, Chicago, Illinois, 2017

    Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, editor.How We Get Free: Black Feminism and the Combahee River Collective. Haymarket Books, Chicago, Illinois, 2017. ISBN 978-1-60846-855-3

    2017

  43. [51]

    Understanding Gen- der Bias in AI-Generated Product Descriptions

    Markelle Kelly, Mohammad Tahaei, Padhraic Smyth, and Lauren Wilcox. Understanding Gen- der Bias in AI-Generated Product Descriptions. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Confer- ence on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT ’25, pages 2587–2615, New York, NY, USA, June 2...

    2025 doi

  44. [52]

    All Public Voices Are Equal, But Are Some More Equal Than Others to LLMs?, February 2026

    Sola Kim, Marco Janssen, Jieshu Wang, Ame Min-Venditti, Neha Karanjia, and Marty Anderies. All Public Voices Are Equal, But Are Some More Equal Than Others to LLMs?, February 2026

    2026

  45. [53]

    Folsom, Luana Greulich, and Cynthia Puranik

    Young-Suk Kim, Stephanie Al Otaiba, Jessica S. Folsom, Luana Greulich, and Cynthia Puranik. Evaluating the dimensionality of first grade written composition.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research, 57(1):199–211, February 2014. ISSN 1092-4388. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388

    2014 doi

  46. [54]

    J. P. Kincaid, Jr. Fishburne, Richard L. Rogers, and Brad S. Chissom. Derivation of New Read- ability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel:. Technical report, Defense Technical Information Center, Fort Be...

    1975

  47. [55]

    Neural Text Summarization: A Critical Evaluation

    Wojciech Kryscinski, Nitish Shirish Keskar, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. Neural Text Summarization: A Critical Evaluation. In Kentaro Inui, Jing Jiang, Vincent Ng, and Xiaojun Wan, editors,Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural L...

    2019 doi

  48. [56]

    Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarization

    Wojciech Kryscinski, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarization. In Bonnie Webber, Trevor Cohn, Yulan He, and Yang Liu, editors,Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Languag...

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    Kumar, Saurav Sahay, Sahisnu Mazumder, Eda Okur, Ramesh Manuvinakurike, Nicole Marie Beckage, Hsuan Su, Hung-yi Lee, and Lama Nachman

    Shachi H. Kumar, Saurav Sahay, Sahisnu Mazumder, Eda Okur, Ramesh Manuvinakurike, Nicole Marie Beckage, Hsuan Su, Hung-yi Lee, and Lama Nachman. Decoding Biases: An Analysis of Automated Methods and Metrics for Gender Bias Detection in Language Models. InNeurIPS 2024 Workshop ...

    2024

  50. [58]

    Counterfactual fairness

    Matt Kusner, Joshua Loftus, Chris Russell, and Ricardo Silva. Counterfactual fairness. InPro- ceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS’17, pages 4069–4079, Red Hook, NY, USA, December 2017. Curran Associates Inc. ISBN 978-1-5...

    2017

  51. [59]

    Crossley

    Kristopher Kyle and Scott A. Crossley. Automatically Assessing Lexical Sophistication: Indices, Tools, Findings, and Application.TESOL Quarterly, 49(4):757–786, 2015. ISSN 1545-7249. doi: 10.1002/tesq.194

    2015 doi

  52. [60]

    Crossley

    Kristopher Kyle and Scott A. Crossley. Measuring Syntactic Complexity in L2 Writing Using Fine-Grained Clausal and Phrasal Indices.The Modern Language Journal, 102(2):333–349, 2018. ISSN 1540-4781. doi: 10.1111/modl.12468

    2018 doi

  53. [61]

    Vocabulary Size and Use: Lexical Richness in L2 Writ- ten Production.Applied Linguistics - APPL LINGUIST, 16:307–322, September 1995

    Batia Laufer and Paul Nation. Vocabulary Size and Use: Lexical Richness in L2 Writ- ten Production.Applied Linguistics - APPL LINGUIST, 16:307–322, September 1995. doi: 10.1093/applin/16.3.307

    1995 doi

  54. [62]

    LeBreton and Jenell L

    James M. LeBreton and Jenell L. Senter. Answers to 20 Questions About Interrater Reliability and Interrater Agreement.Organizational Research Methods, 11(4):815–852, October 2008. ISSN 1094-4281. doi: 10.1177/1094428106296642

    2008 doi

  55. [63]

    Reference-free Summarization Evaluation via Semantic Correlation and Compression Ratio

    Yizhu Liu, Qi Jia, and Kenny Zhu. Reference-free Summarization Evaluation via Semantic Correlation and Compression Ratio. In Marine Carpuat, Marie-Catherine de Marneffe, and Ivan Vladimir Meza Ruiz, editors,Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American 24 Chapter of...

    2022 doi

  56. [64]

    A Corpus-Based Evaluation of Syntactic Complexity Measures as Indices of College- Level ESL Writers’ Language Development.TESOL Quarterly, 45(1):36–62, March 2011

    Xiaofei Lu. A Corpus-Based Evaluation of Syntactic Complexity Measures as Indices of College- Level ESL Writers’ Language Development.TESOL Quarterly, 45(1):36–62, March 2011. ISSN 0039-8322, 1545-7249. doi: 10.5054/tq.2011.240859

    2011 doi

  57. [65]

    Steven G. Luke. Evaluating significance in linear mixed-effects models in R.Behavior Research Methods, 49(4):1494–1502, August 2017. ISSN 1554-3528. doi: 10.3758/s13428-016-0809-y

    2017 doi

  58. [66]

    Milkman, Modupe Akinola, and Dolly Chugh

    Katherine L. Milkman, Modupe Akinola, and Dolly Chugh. What happens before? A field ex- periment exploring how pay and representation differentially shape bias on the pathway into or- ganizations.Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(6):1678–1712, November 2015. ISSN 1939-1854, 0...

    2015 doi

  59. [67]

    Dan Nally, Mike Parker, Matthew Aumeier, Kevin Murphy, Michelle Rau, James McWalter, Jack Titus, Lauren Schramm, Reilly Raab, Anurag Acharya, Sarthak Chaturvedi, Anastasia Bernat, Sai Munikoti, and Sameera Horawalavithana. Workshop summary report on using AI tools to improve t...

    2025

  60. [68]

    Courtney Napoles, Maria Nădejde, and Joel Tetreault. Enabling Robust Grammatical Er- ror Correction in New Domains: Data Sets, Metrics, and Analyses.Transactions of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics, 7:551–566, September 2019. ISSN 2307-387X. doi: 10.1162/tacl_a_00282

    2019 doi

  61. [69]

    Huy Nghiem, Phuong-Anh Nguyen-Le, John Prindle, Rachel Rudinger, and Hal Daumé III. ‘Rich Dad, Poor Lad’: How do Large Language Models Contextualize Socioeconomic Factors in College Admission ? In Christos Christodoulopoulos, Tanmoy Chakraborty, Carolyn Rose, and Violet Peng, ...

    2025 doi

  62. [70]

    2024 Federal AI Use Case Inventory

    Office of Management and Budget and Federal Chief Information Officers Council. 2024 Federal AI Use Case Inventory. Technical report, Office of Management and Budget (OMB); CIO.gov, Washington, DC, December 2024

    2024

  63. [71]

    Office of Management and Budget and Shalanda D. Young. Modernizing the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP). Technical Report M-24-15, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C., July 2024

    2024

  64. [72]

    Ollama. Ollama. https://github.com/ollama/ollama, January 2026

    2026

  65. [73]

    Horowitz, Alexander W

    MahmudOmar, ShellySoffer, ReemAgbareia, NicolaLuigiBragazzi, DonaldU.Apakama, CarolR. Horowitz, Alexander W. Charney, Robert Freeman, Benjamin Kummer, Benjamin S. Glicksberg, Girish N. Nadkarni, and Eyal Klang. Sociodemographic biases in medical decision making by large langua...

    2025 doi

  66. [74]

    Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback

    Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, a...

    2022

  67. [75]

    BBQ: A hand-built bias benchmark for question answering

    Alicia Parrish, Angelica Chen, Nikita Nangia, Vishakh Padmakumar, Jason Phang, Jana Thomp- son, Phu Mon Htut, and Samuel Bowman. BBQ: A hand-built bias benchmark for question answering. In Smaranda Muresan, Preslav Nakov, and Aline Villavicencio, editors,Findings of 25 the Ass...

    2022 doi

  68. [76]

    Active Learning for e-Rulemaking: Public Comment Categorization

    Stephen Purpura, Claire Cardie, and Jesse Simons. Active Learning for e-Rulemaking: Public Comment Categorization. InThe Proceedings of the 9th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference, May 2008

    2008

  69. [77]

    Midtbøen

    Lincoln Quillian, Devah Pager, Ole Hexel, and Arnfinn H. Midtbøen. Meta-analysis of field exper- iments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(41):10870–10875, October 2017. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1706255114

    2017 doi

  70. [78]

    Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT- Networks

    Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT- Networks. In Kentaro Inui, Jing Jiang, Vincent Ng, and Xiaojun Wan, editors,Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th In- ternationa...

    2019 doi

  71. [79]

    Sara Rinfret, Robert Duffy, Jeffrey Cook, and Shane St. Onge. Bots, fake comments, and E- rulemaking: The impact on federal regulations.International Journal of Public Administration, 45(11):859–867, August 2022. ISSN 0190-0692. doi: 10.1080/01900692.2021.1931314

    2022 doi

  72. [80]

    Robert, Nicolas Chopin, and Judith Rousseau

    Christian P. Robert, Nicolas Chopin, and Judith Rousseau. Harold Jeffreys’s Theory of Probability Revisited.Statistical Science, 24(2):141–172, 2009. ISSN 0883-4237

    2009

  73. [81]

    Participation Run Amok: The Costs of Mass Participation for Deliberative Agency Decisionmaking.Northwestern University Law Review, 92(No

    Jim Rossi. Participation Run Amok: The Costs of Mass Participation for Deliberative Agency Decisionmaking.Northwestern University Law Review, 92(No. 1):173, October 1997

    1997

  74. [82]

    Kusner, Joshua R

    Chris Russell, Matt J. Kusner, Joshua R. Loftus, and Ricardo Silva. When Worlds Collide: In- tegrating Different Counterfactual Assumptions in Fairness. InNeural Information Processing Systems, December 2017

    2017

  75. [83]

    Born with a SilverSpoon? Investi- gating Socioeconomic Bias in LLMs

    Smriti Singh, Shuvam Keshari, Vinija Jain, and Aman Chadha. Born with a SilverSpoon? Investi- gating Socioeconomic Bias in LLMs. InNeurIPS 2025 Workshop on Evaluating the Evolving LLM Lifecycle: Benchmarks, Emergent Abilities, and Scaling, September 2025

    2025

  76. [84]

    Quantifying gender bias towards politicians in cross-lingual language models.PLOS ONE, 18(11):e0277640, November 2023

    Karolina Stańczak, Sagnik Ray Choudhury, Tiago Pimentel, Ryan Cotterell, and Isabelle Augen- stein. Quantifying gender bias towards politicians in cross-lingual language models.PLOS ONE, 18(11):e0277640, November 2023. ISSN 1932-6203. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277640

    2023 doi

  77. [85]

    Political Reasons, Deliberative Democracy, and Administrative Law.Iowa Law Review, 97(3):849–912, 2011–2012

    Glen Staszewski. Political Reasons, Deliberative Democracy, and Administrative Law.Iowa Law Review, 97(3):849–912, 2011–2012

    2011

  78. [86]

    Identifying and analyzing common English writing challenges among regular undergraduate students.Heliyon, 10(17), September 2024

    Tamirat Taye and Melese Mengesha. Identifying and analyzing common English writing challenges among regular undergraduate students.Heliyon, 10(17), September 2024. ISSN 2405-8440. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36876

    2024 doi

  79. [87]

    Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05530, 2024

    Gemini Team, Petko Georgiev, Ving Ian Lei, Ryan Burnell, Libin Bai, Anmol Gulati, Garrett Tanzer, Damien Vincent, Zhufeng Pan, Shibo Wang, et al. Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05530, 2024

    2024

  80. [88]

    Using google translate in EFL drafts: A preliminary investigation.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(5-6):510–526, July 2019

    Shu-Chiao Tsai. Using google translate in EFL drafts: A preliminary investigation.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(5-6):510–526, July 2019. ISSN 0958-8221. doi: 10.1080/09588221. 2018.1527361

    2019 doi

  81. [89]

    Demographic aspects of first names.Scientific Data, 5(1):180025, March

    Konstantinos Tzioumis. Demographic aspects of first names.Scientific Data, 5(1):180025, March

  82. [90]

    doi: 10.1038/sdata.2018.25

    ISSN 2052-4463. doi: 10.1038/sdata.2018.25

    doi

  83. [91]

    Dobbs, and Jessica Scott

    Paola Uccelli, Christina L. Dobbs, and Jessica Scott. Mastering Academic Language: Organization and Stance in the Persuasive Writing of High School Students.Written Communication, 30(1): 36–62, January 2013. ISSN 0741-0883. doi: 10.1177/0741088312469013. 26

    2013 doi

  84. [92]

    United States Congress. 5 U.S.C. § 553, 2022. URLhttps://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/ USCODE-2022-title5/USCODE-2022-title5-partI-chap5-subchapII-sec553

    2022

  85. [93]

    Bureau of Labor Statistics

    U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employed persons by detailed occupation, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. Technical report, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC, January 2025

    2025

  86. [94]

    Census Bureau

    U.S. Census Bureau. Frequently Occurring Surnames from the 2010 Census. https://www.census.gov/topics/population/genealogy/data/2010_surnames.html, 2010

    2010

  87. [95]

    A practical solution to the pervasive problems ofp values.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(5):779–804, October 2007

    Eric-Jan Wagenmakers. A practical solution to the pervasive problems ofp values.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(5):779–804, October 2007. ISSN 1531-5320. doi: 10.3758/BF03194105

    2007 doi

  88. [96]

    Bin Wang, Chengwei Wei, Zhengyuan Liu, Geyu Lin, and Nancy F. Chen. Resilience of Large Language Models for Noisy Instructions. In Yaser Al-Onaizan, Mohit Bansal, and Yun-Nung Chen, editors,Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, pages 11939–1195...

    2024 doi

  89. [97]

    The nature of error in adolescent student writing.Reading and Writing, 27(6):1073–1094, July 2014

    Kristen Campbell Wilcox, Robert Yagelski, and Fang Yu. The nature of error in adolescent student writing.Reading and Writing, 27(6):1073–1094, July 2014. ISSN 0922-4777, 1573-0905. doi: 10.1007/s11145-013-9492-x

    2014 doi

  90. [98]

    Gender, Race, and Intersectional Bias in Resume Screening via Language Model Retrieval

    Kyra Wilson and Aylin Caliskan. Gender, Race, and Intersectional Bias in Resume Screening via Language Model Retrieval. InProceedings of the 2024 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, pages 1578–1590. AAAI Press, February 2025

    2024

  91. [99]

    2024 Regulatory Year in Review: Ten Important Regulatory Developments

    Zhoudan Xie, Sarah Hay, Henry Hirsch, and Finn Dobkin. 2024 Regulatory Year in Review: Ten Important Regulatory Developments. Technical report, Regulatory Studies Center, George Washington University, Washington, DC, January 25

    2024

  92. [100]

    Elliott Casal

    Yiran Xu and J. Elliott Casal. Navigating complexity in plain English: A longitudinal analysis of syntactic and lexical complexity development in L2 legal writing.Journal of Second Language Writing, 62:101059, December 2023. ISSN 10603743. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2023.101059

    2023 doi

  93. [101]

    Weiwei Yang, Xiaofei Lu, and Sara Cushing Weigle. Different topics, different discourse: Re- lationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity, and judgments of writing quality.Journal of Second Language Writing, 28:53–67, June 2015. ISSN 10603743. doi: 10.1016...

    2015 doi

  94. [102]

    Cushing, and Guoxing Yu

    Weiwei Yang, Sara T. Cushing, and Guoxing Yu. Linguistic predictors of L2 writing performance: Variations across genres.Assessing Writing, 66:100985, October 2025. ISSN 10752935. doi: 10. 1016/j.asw.2025.100985

    2025

  95. [103]

    The Linguistic Development of Students of English as a Second Language in Two Written Genres.TESOL Quarterly, 51(2):275–301, 2017

    Hyung-Jo Yoon and Charlene Polio. The Linguistic Development of Students of English as a Second Language in Two Written Genres.TESOL Quarterly, 51(2):275–301, 2017. ISSN 1545-7249. doi: 10.1002/tesq.296

    2017 doi

  96. [104]

    The Role of Cognitive and Affective Factors in Measures of L2 Writing.Written Communication, 35(1):32–57, January 2018

    Reza Zabihi. The Role of Cognitive and Affective Factors in Measures of L2 Writing.Written Communication, 35(1):32–57, January 2018. ISSN 0741-0883. doi: 10.1177/0741088317735836

    2018 doi

  97. [105]

    85% of people named ’Connor’ are White

    Xiaopeng Zhang and Xiaofei Lu. Revisiting the predictive power of traditional vs. fine-grained syntactic complexity indices for L2 writing quality: The case of two genres.Assessing Writing, 51: 100597, January 2022. ISSN 10752935. doi: 10.1016/j.asw.2021.100597. 27 A Design A....

    2022 doi

  98. [106]

    CONTENT: Evaluate clarity of position, relevance to the policy issue, and depth of supporting points. 5 = Position immediately clear; highly relevant arguments; well-developed supporting points with specific evidence 4 = Position clear; relevant arguments; adequate supporting ...

  99. [107]

    ORGANIZATION: Evaluate logical structure, coherence, progression of ideas, and transitions. 5 = Logical structure throughout; clear progression; effective transitions; conclusion follows from argument 4 = Generally logical structure; coherent progression; most transitions effe...

  100. [108]

    LANGUAGE USE: Evaluate grammatical accuracy, sentence variety, and complexity. 5 = Grammatically accurate; varied sentence structures; appropriate complexity 4 = Minor grammatical errors not impeding understanding; some sentence variety 3 = Some grammatical errors but meaning ...

  101. [109]

    VOCABULARY: Evaluate lexical diversity, sophistication, range, and appropriateness. 5 = Diverse word choice; sophisticated and precise terminology; appropriate register 4 = Good vocabulary range; mostly appropriate choices; occasional imprecision 3 = Adequate vocabulary; some ...

  102. [110]

    content": [1-5],

    MECHANICS: Evaluate spelling, punctuation, and capitalization. 5 = No errors 4 = Very few errors (1-2) 3 = Several errors (3-5) not impeding comprehension 2 = Frequent errors (6-10) occasionally impeding comprehension 1 = Pervasive errors impeding comprehension OUTPUT FORMAT: ...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed May 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.