Reading and Use of Informational Material by South African Youth
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
Research on children's reading habits, preferences, and use of information provides useful insights for those working to motivate children and young people to read and use information. This study, conducted by the Children's Literature Research Unit (CLRU) in the Department of Information Science at the University of South Africa (Unisa), Pretoria, was modeled on a study of children's reading habits in England conducted by the Roehampton Institute in the 1990s. Findings reported in this article are related to the reading of informational material by children between the ages of 9 and 16 in South Africa. Although many learners in South Africa have limited access to school libraries or public libraries, the study participants had a positive attitude to reading and nonfiction texts. They were developing strategies to deal with information texts by using retrieval tools, and they were prepared to persevere with books even if they did not understand some words. The study shoiued that children's reading interests in South Africa are not radically different from those of children in England. However, because many young people in South Africa read in a second language, information books need to be written with this in mind.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 it