> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.learningcommons.org/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.
# Intertextuality
> Reference documentation for the Intertextuality literacy evaluator.
[Evaluator last updated June 24, 2026.](#evaluator-release-history)
## Overview
The Intertextuality evaluator assesses how much a text's meaning depends on relational knowledge – i.e. what a text assumes students have already encountered (from another text, a cultural reference, genre conventions, etc.) and then builds on to create meaning.
Intertextuality is one of the least visible qualitative dimensions of text complexity – unlike [Vocabulary](/evaluators/literacy-evaluators/vocabulary) or [Sentence Structure](/evaluators/literacy-evaluators/sentence-structure), there is no word to flag or clause to count.
Intertextuality is distinct from [Subject Matter Knowledge](/evaluators/literacy-evaluators/subject-matter-knowledge):
* **Subject Matter Knowledge** – Content that a text assumes (facts, concepts, domain knowledge)
* **Intertextuality** - Relational knowledge that a text assumes (prior encounters with texts, references and conventions)
## At a glance
| | |
| :------------------- | :----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Input type** | Informational text |
| **Passage length** | 200 words or more |
| **Supported grades** | 3–12 |
| **Rubric** | [Student Achievement Partners (SAP)](https://learnwithsap.org/) ↗'s [Qualitative Text Complexity Rubric for Informational Text](https://learnwithsap.b-cdn.net/app/uploads/2026/04/Qualitative-Text-Complexity-Rubric-Informational.pdf) ↗ |
The evaluator was built and validated using the model and temperature below (other configurations will produce different results and may have lower accuracy):
| | |
| :-------------- | :--------------------- |
| **Model used** | gemini-3-flash-preview |
| **Temperature** | 0 |
## Getting started
Follow the [Quickstart](/evaluators/getting-started/quickstart) to start using this evaluator:
| Access method | |
| :------------------------ | :------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| **Evaluators Playground** | [View in the Learning Commons Platform](https://platform.learningcommons.org/apps/evaluators/playground?utm_source=docs\&utm_medium=evaluators) ↗ |
| **Python notebook** | [View in GitHub](https://github.com/learning-commons-org/evaluators/blob/main/evals/intertextuality_evaluator.ipynb) ↗ |
| **Prompts** | [View in GitHub](https://github.com/learning-commons-org/evaluators/tree/main/evals/prompts/intertextuality/) ↗ |
## Inputs
| Input | Description | Required |
| :--------------------- | :------------------------------ | :------- |
| **Text passage** | Informational text | Yes |
| **Target grade level** | Enables grade-specific guidance | No |
## Output
| Field | Description |
| :------------------------------ | :----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Complexity score** | Intertextuality complexity level, based on how many references or allusions are present, how central they are to meaning, and how widely accessible they are likely to be for students at the target grade.- Slightly complex
- Few or no intertextual references
- Any present are explained in the text or widely familiar
- Meaning is self-contained
- Moderately complex
- Some references, allusions, or genre conventions
- Generally accessible at grade level
- Meaning is enriched but not dependent on them
- Very complex
- Multiple references central to meaning
- Assumes familiarity with texts, cultural touchstones, or genre conventions not introduced in the text
- Exceedingly complex
- Dense, layered references essential to meaning
- Assumes deep familiarity with a body of texts, traditions, or discourse not part of the text
- Largely inaccessible without prior encounters
|
| **Reasoning** | Synthesized decision that explains the rating and relevant context, cites specific references and their impact on comprehension, etc. |
| **Detailed summary** | Individual factors that drive the rating (specific references, allusions, genre conventions, and shared discourse detected, with descriptions and their effect on intertextual demand) |
| **Assumptions and scaffolding** | Analysis of what the author assumes the reader already knows versus what the text explains, with suggestions for making the demands accessible |
| **Recommended use cases** | Instructional opportunities for using the text and its intertextual demands strategically. |
## Interpreting results
High or low complexity scores are not inherently good or bad. A higher complexity score simply indicates a text whose meaning depends more substantially on prior cultural or textual encounters.
**Example:** A "Very complex" or "Exceedingly complex" text may be ideal if
the instructional goal is analyzing how authors use allusion and convention to
build arguments. However, that same text may not be a good fit if the
instructional goal is content comprehension.
## Accuracy and validation
This evaluator is provided as Early access. Comprehensive accuracy measures
are still evolving, and validation testing is ongoing.
The evaluator was optimized using 25 passages from the [CLEAR Corpus](https://www.commonlit.org/blog/introducing-the-clear-corpus-an-open-dataset-to-advance-research-28ff8cfea84a/)↗, annotated by 2 literacy experts from ANET, were used to iteratively refine the prompt against gold-standard examples and expert reasoning. The result was validated through expert review of 20 additional passages.
| Metric | Description | Result |
| :---------------------------- | :---------- | :---------------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Complexity score accuracy** | | 85% agreement with expert annotations |
| **Expert agreement** | | 80% (8 of 10 sampled outputs passed expert review; threshold 60%) |
| **Reasoning soundness** | | Average 3.5 / 5 |
The benchmark dataset does not yet include validated examples of "Very
complex" or "Exceedingly complex" texts, which are uncommon and difficult to
annotate consistently for grades 3–12. Use caution when applying this
evaluator to higher grade levels where such texts are more frequent.
The evaluator is also tuned for informational texts and may perform less reliably
on literary texts.
## Evaluator release history
| Date | Changes |
| ------------- | ------------- |
| June 24, 2026 | First release |