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 address a critical gap in health education scholarship by exploring the contexts in which self-help reading takes place, the motivations of self-help readers and the processes through which such readers engage with books on mental health. Design: Structured, in-depth interviews conducted with participants recruited through online classified advertisements. Setting: Self-help readers were recruited from the four largest cities in western Canada. The setting of self-help reading as an ‘intervention’ was as natural as possible, with readers being asked to reflect upon their recent experience of reading a self-help book. Method: Qualitative interviews conducted with 45 readers. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically. Results: Illustrative narratives are provided for two categories of readers: those who read in conjunction with direct therapeutic intervention and those who read without input from a therapist. Findings within both categories indicate a high level of diversity in terms of contexts, motivations and experiences. Conclusion: Understanding the diversity of readers and their experiences is an important prerequisite for health educators wishing to develop a critical and responsible approach to positioning self-help literature within the broader range of approaches to promoting mental health.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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