The importance of leisure reading to health sciences students: results of a survey
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 determine what value health sciences students place on leisure reading, whether they prefer to read online or in print, what the principal barriers are to their reading and whether they wish to have a leisure reading collection at their health sciences library. METHODS: In October 2010, a link to a survey was sent to all 1800 students in health sciences professional programmes at the author's institution. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirteen students (11.8%) responded. Most felt that leisure reading had helped in their development as health professionals and increased their empathy. They listed many benefits of reading, such as improved understanding of minority groups, reduced stress, and improved thinking and communication skills. The majority preferred to read books and magazines in print, while the largest number preferred reading newspapers in print as well. Lack of time, fatigue and the expense of purchasing reading materials were the greatest barriers to reading. A majority of students were in favour of having a leisure reading collection set up at their library. CONCLUSIONS: Leisure reading was valued by the respondents, who felt it provided personal and professional benefits. However, many indicated that circumstances made it difficult to participate in leisure reading.
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 | 0.045 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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