MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988661942 · doi:10.1016/j.iilr.2004.03.001

Reading by Russian-speaking immigrants in Toronto: use of public libraries, bookstores, and home book collections

2004· article· en· W1988661942 on OpenAlexaffabout
Keren Dali

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Information & Library Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLibrary Science and Administration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationReading (process)Ethnic groupPurchasingSociologyPolitical scienceLibrary scienceMedia studiesBusinessComputer scienceMarketingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reports the results of a survey of the reading habits and interests of immigrants in Toronto who speak Russian as their first language, including their use of Canadian public libraries, ethnic and English-language bookstores, and their attitudes toward collecting books at home. The survey results show that Russian Canadians use the public library system extensively and for diverse purposes. They also make use of ethnic and English-language bookstores, purchasing materials in both Russian and English for leisure reading, educational and professional development, and expansion of their highly valued home collections. The peculiarities of the demands and behavior of first generation Russian-speaking immigrants are also discussed, especially with regard to changes in reading interests and attitudes associated with immigration, as well as the problems experienced by public libraries in meeting the needs of this clientele. Finally, recommendations for the improvement of public library services and collections for this linguistic group are provided.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations26
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Information & Library ReviewSame topicLibrary Science and AdministrationFrench-language works237,207