Leisure reading collections in academic health sciences and science libraries: results of visits to seven libraries
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
OBJECTIVE: To visit leisure reading collections in academic science and health sciences libraries to determine how they function and what role they play in their libraries. METHODS: The author visited seven libraries with leisure reading collections and carried out a semistructured interview with those responsible either for selection of materials or for the establishment of the collection. RESULTS: These collections contained a variety of materials, with some libraries focusing on health-science-related materials and others on providing recreational reading. The size of the collections also varied, from 186 to 9700 books, with corresponding differences in budget size. All collections were housed apart, with the same loan period as the regular collection. No collections contained electronic materials. Although there was little comparable statistical data on usage, at the six libraries at which active selection was occurring, librarians and library staff felt that the collection was well used and felt that it provided library users with benefits such as stress relief and relaxation and exposure to other perspectives. CONCLUSION: Librarians and library staff at the libraries that undertook active selection felt that their leisure reading collection was worthwhile. It would be interesting for future work to focus on the user experience of such collections.
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 | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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