“Pure Delight and Professional Development”: The Reading Practices and Library Use of an Active Poetry Community / « Pures délices » et développement professionnel : Les pratiques de lecture d’une communauté active de poésie et la fréquentation de la bibliothèque
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract:This paper reports the findings of an online survey designed to explore the reading practices, library habits, and book acquisition of adult members of an active poetry community (n= 32) in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Findings show the close relationship between poetry reading and poetry writing and the tight interweaving of poetry throughout the working and personal lives of respondents. Reading and finding out about poetry are also highly social in nature with a clear reliance on the poetry community rather than the public library. Our findings have implications for the roles of reading institutions such as bookstores, libraries, and publishers, as well as for collection development and readers’ advisory services to specialized reading communities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.054 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it