Trend and Significance of 'One Book, One City' Reading Campaign: With a Focus on Cases of Other Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
이 연구의 목적은 최근 확산되고 있는 '한 책, 한 도시' 운동의 사례를 살펴봄으로써 지역사회의 특성과 결합된 독서 운동으로서의 의미를 고찰하고 전체적인 '한 책' 운동의 현황을 분석하는 것이다. 미국 시애틀의 '시애틀 온 시민이 책한권을 같이 읽는다면, 시카고의 '한 책 한 시카고', 캘리포니아주의 '분노의 포도 읽기' 및 캐나다의 'Canada Reads'의 사례연구를 수행하고 239개 '한 책' 운동의 목표 선정 도서, 토론 지침 및 제반 프로그램의 전반적 특성을 검토하였다. '한 책' 운동은 독서와 토론 중심이지만 다양한 매체와 행사를 결합한 개혁적, 지속적 독서운동이며, 공공도서관과 지역사회의 긴밀한 협조 및 다양성을 반영한 도서 선정, 프로그램의 진행 등으로 성공을 거두는 것으로 나타났다. The purpose of this study is to examine the trend and characteristics of 'One Book. One City' reading campaign by studying cases of four communities; 'If Ail of Seattle Read the Same Book'(Seattle), 'One Book One Chicago' (Chicago), 'Reading' 'The Grapes of Wrath (California) and 'Canada Reads'(Canada), and analyzing objectives, selected books, discussion guides, and programs of 239 'One Book' campaigns. 'One Book' readng campaign can be characterized to be successful for combining various media and events with reading and discussion of written text and largely dependent upon cooperation between public libraries and communities and their diversity in selecting books and conducting programs.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".