Sources: the pool, the flow and the scores

This file is the information-typing pool: the flow from hits to sources, then each source with its quality. Searches: protocol.

Flow

Stage Formal Grey
Returned by the strings 11,159 not recorded
Screened 590 238
Included as new 42 21
Carried, read again 1 1
In the review 43 22
  • Formal:

    • 11,159 records were returned (Semantic Scholar 10,979 over 31 strings; arXiv 180 over 9 strings).
    • 590 were screened by title, with repeats across strings.
    • 42 were included as new; Kintsch 1978 was carried from reader-ergonomics and read again first-hand.
    • About 548 were excluded, for the reasons below.
  • Grey:

    • The web strings returned about 47 results and the producer visits 12; the Q/A strings 179 records. No total is recorded for the web.
    • 238 were screened (59 web, 179 Q/A).
    • 21 were included as new (9 web, 12 Q/A threads); Horn 1969 was carried and read first-hand for the first time.
  • In the review: 65 sources, 43 formal and 22 grey. DITA-OT 2026 is the reviewer's own count of a public repository, not a source, and is not scored.

  • Formal exclusions, counted by title and rounded to tens:

    • repeats across strings: 60;
    • another field using the same words (genetics, physics, image annotation, topic models, crisis tweets): 330;
    • school writing and second-language teaching with no reading or typing claim: 90;
    • reuse, single-sourcing and content management without types (document-model): 30;
    • relevant but not reached or not opened, located only: 10 (Clark 2016, Harrison 2005, Horn 1992, Schmitz 2017, Dixon 2009, Yayli 2011, Mustafa 1995). Also: the Berkenkotter and Huckin book, a 2013 review of the Sydney School book.
  • The categories above account for 520 of the 548 formal exclusions; 28 were excluded without a recorded reason.

  • Grey exclusions, rounded:

    • known sources seen again: 10;
    • not about typed units: 25;
    • pages found but not read (one vendor page timed out; drafts of DITA 2.0): 5;
    • Q/A records not included after reading the title or the thread: 167, repeats across the 14 strings included.
  • Added by snowballing: Mandler 1977, Rumelhart 1975 and Stein 1975 were reached again from Kintsch 1978; Bogaerds-Hazenberg 2023 from Bogaerds-Hazenberg 2020.

  • Existing reviews found: 8; 7 are in review.md strand 0, and Clark 2016 was located only.

The figure draws the stages of the table for information typing.

11,159 formal hits were returned and 590 screened; 238 grey results were screened. 42 formal and 21 grey sources were added and one of each carried, for 65 sources in the review.

Formal sources

Grade vocabulary as in the README. "lead" means named in the commissioning brief and verified here; "carried" means the key comes from another repository's bibliography.

Key Kind Found via Quality Used in
Kintsch 1978 formal carried (reader-ergonomics) theory; two sections read first-hand frame; review 1; state-of-the-art; position
Rumelhart 1975 formal F8 theory, title and venue only frame; review 1
Mandler 1977 formal lead; F8 measured, children and adults, ERIC abstract frame; review 1
Thorndyke 1977 formal lead measured, two experiments, ERIC abstract frame; review 1
Stein 1975 formal (research report) lead measured, 48 children, ERIC abstract (secondary) frame; review 1
Mandler 1978 formal F8; F31 title and venue only review 1
Black 1979 formal lead; F8 critique, abstract review 1, 6; state-of-the-art; against
Trabasso 1985 formal F8 title and venue only frame; review 1; against
Kintsch 1982 formal F28 measured, ERIC and APA abstracts review 4; state-of-the-art; baseline
Meyer 2001 formal lead measured, adults, three groups, ERIC abstract frame; review 5
Hebert 2016 formal F10 meta-analysis, 45 studies, ERIC abstract (secondary) review 0, 5; baseline
Pyle 2017 formal F10 meta-analysis, 19 studies, abstract (secondary) review 0; against
Bogaerds-Hazenberg 2020 formal F10 meta-analysis, 44 studies, abstract (secondary) review 0; against; baseline
Eiriksdottir 2011 formal F27 narrative review, PubMed abstract frame; review 0, 5; position
Andersen 2015 formal F18; F29 integrative review, title and venue only here; read in document-model frame; review 0
Batova 2014 formal F18 integrative review, title and venue only here; read in document-model review 0
Batova 2017 formal F18 systematic review, title and venue only here; read in document-model review 0
Zwaan 1994 formal F26 measured, two experiments, abstract (secondary) frame; review 4; against
Triantafyllopoulos 2021 formal F26 measured, three online experiments, abstract review 4; against
Markevich 2025 formal F26 measured, descriptive, 44 adolescents, abstract review 4
Horn 1981 formal F7 title and venue only frame; review 2
Horn 1999 formal F3; F7 title and venue only review 2
Fields 1981 formal F4 survey, ERIC abstract review 2
Fields 1982 formal F3 evaluation, title and venue only review 2
Hartley 1981 formal F4 critique, abstract review 2
Jonassen 1980 formal F4 measured, one comparison; journal abstract (secondary), the ERIC abstract gave no result review 2; state-of-the-art
Kools 2008 formal F4 measured, one text varied, abstract review 2, 4; against; baseline
Priestley 2001 formal F2 architecture paper, title and venue only here; read in document-model review 3
Priestley 2002 formal F2 architecture paper, title and venue only review 3
Evia 2015 formal F2; F18 teaching account, title and venue only review 3
Swarts 2022 formal F30 measured, descriptive, corpus, abstract review 3
Heinonen 2022 formal F29 exploratory user studies, three countries, abstract review 3
Bailie 2015 formal F2 two case studies, title and venue only review 6
Coggio 2015 formal F18 case study, title and venue only review 6
Batova 2018 formal F18 qualitative, 12 months, one company, abstract review 6; state-of-the-art; against
Carroll 1987 formal F16 title and venue only frame; review 4; against
Lazonder 1993 formal F17 title and venue only review 4; against
Miller 1984 formal F13 theory, title and venue only frame
Cheng 2007 formal F15 title and venue only frame; review 5
Artemeva 2008 formal F14 title and venue only frame; review 5
Brent 2011 formal F14 title and venue only frame; review 5
Jimeno Yepes 2024 formal X1 measured, preprint, abstract review 7; state-of-the-art; position; baseline
Mortezaagha 2026 formal X2 measured, preprint, 2,359 articles, abstract (secondary) review 7; against

Grey sources, scored

Subtotals as in the evidence README.

Key Kind Found via Quality (total, then subtotals) Used in
Horn 1969 grey tier 1 (government report) carried; G1 18.5 of 20 (4 / 6 / 2.5 / 1 / 1 / 2 / 1 / 1); the encyclopedia page once cited under this key scored 6.5 review 2, 4; state-of-the-art; position; against; baseline
OASIS 2015 grey tier 1 (standard) P 16.5 of 20 (4 / 4.5 / 2.5 / 1 / 1 / 1.5 / 1 / 1) frame; review 3, 8; state-of-the-art; position; against; baseline
Bogaerds-Hazenberg 2023 grey tier 1 (doctoral thesis) snowball 18.5 of 20 (4 / 6 / 3.5 / 1 / 1 / 1.5 / 0.5 / 1) review 0, 5
Baker 2013 grey tier 1 (book; publisher page only) lead; P 10 of 20 (3.5 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 0.5 / 1); scored low for being unread frame; review 8
Baker 2018b grey tier 1 (book; publisher page only) lead; P 9.5 of 20 (3.5 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 1) frame (example only); against
SchemaOrg 2026 grey tier 2 (vocabulary pages) P 14 of 20 (4 / 3 / 3.5 / 1 / 0.5 / 0.5 / 1 / 0.5) frame; review 8; state-of-the-art; position
Kubernetes 2026b grey tier 2 (project documentation) P 12 of 20 (2.5 / 3 / 3.5 / 1 / 0 / 0.5 / 1 / 0.5) frame; review 8; state-of-the-art; position; baseline
Information Mapping 2026 grey tier 2 (company page) P 5 of 20 (2 / 1 / 0.5 / 0 / 0 / 0.5 / 0.5 / 0.5) frame; review 8; position; against (example only)
DITAWriter 2026 grey tier 3 (informal list) P 13.5 of 20 (3 / 4 / 3.5 / 1 / 0.5 / 1 / 0.5 / 0) protocol; review 8; state-of-the-art; position; baseline
Johnson 2013 grey tier 3 (blog) G3 13 of 20 (2 / 4.5 / 3 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 0.5 / 0) against
WSE 2018a grey tier 2 (Q/A) TU1 13 of 20 (2 / 4 / 2.5 / 1 / 1 / 1.5 / 0.5 / 0.5) frame; against
WSE 2018b grey tier 2 (Q/A) TU1 13 of 20 (1.5 / 4 / 3.5 / 1 / 1 / 1.5 / 0 / 0.5) frame; review 8; against
WSE 2014a grey tier 2 (Q/A) TU1 11 of 20 (2 / 3 / 3.5 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0.5) review 8; state-of-the-art; against
WSE 2018c grey tier 2 (Q/A) TU14 12.5 of 20 (2 / 4 / 2.5 / 1 / 0.5 / 1.5 / 0.5 / 0.5) review 8
WSE 2018d grey tier 2 (Q/A) TU8 11 of 20 (1.5 / 3 / 3.5 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 0.5 / 0.5) review 8
WSE 2014b grey tier 2 (Q/A) TU8 10 of 20 (0.5 / 4 / 3 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0.5) review 8
WSE 2020a grey tier 2 (Q/A) TU12 8.5 of 20 (1 / 2 / 3 / 1 / 0 / 1 / 0 / 0.5) frame; review 8; position; against (example only)
WSE 2022a grey tier 2 (Q/A) TU12 11 of 20 (0.5 / 4.5 / 3 / 1 / 0.5 / 1 / 0 / 0.5) frame; review 8
SO 2013a grey tier 2 (Q/A) TU11 12.5 of 20 (1.5 / 4 / 3.5 / 1 / 0.5 / 1.5 / 0 / 0.5) review 8; against
SO 2016b grey tier 2 (Q/A) TU2 13.5 of 20 (1.5 / 4.5 / 4 / 1 / 0.5 / 1.5 / 0 / 0.5) review 8
SO 2019a grey tier 2 (Q/A) TU11 8 of 20 (0.5 / 3 / 2.5 / 1 / 0 / 0.5 / 0 / 0.5) review 8 (example only)
UXSE 2014a grey tier 2 (Q/A) TU13 11.5 of 20 (1 / 3 / 4 / 1 / 0.5 / 1 / 0.5 / 0.5) review 8

Result of the scoring

  • 22 grey sources scored: 10 from the web and 12 Q/A threads. 4 fall below 10 of 20: Information Mapping 2026, Baker 2018b, WSE 2020a and SO 2019a. They appear only as examples of practice.
  • Baker 2013 and WSE 2014b sit at exactly 10 and stay in; Baker 2013 is used only for what its publisher lists.
  • The highest scores go to the 1969 report itself (Horn 1969), a doctoral thesis (Bogaerds-Hazenberg 2023) and the DITA standard (OASIS 2015).
  • Horn 1969 rose from 6.5 to 18.5 because the report, not an encyclopedia page about it, was read; the change was sent to the repositories that cite Horn 1969.
  • Linked, not reviewed again: Meyer 1975 (top-level structure, reviewed in psycholinguistics); Red Hat 2026b and GitLab 2026 (topic types and modules, reviewed in documentation).