What do young adults read? : a qualitative study into what texts Grade 12 students value -- past, present, and future
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What do Young Adults Read? What texts do young adults read and what media do they value? This qualitative study examines the breadth of texts that seventy young adults value—past, present and future. In this investigation, reading is the act of receiving a text and interpreting it. Students named their favourite texts—movies, videos, television, print and those that they valued from childhood. The study took place in three stages—the first, collecting written survey responses from seventy students from three different Alberta high schools. Next, I conducted audiotaped interviews with twelve individuals, two boys and two girls at each site. Finally, I translated six of the interview transcripts into short representative narratives of young adult readers. This multi-case study reveals how idiosyncratic the engagement with reading is for each individual. The findings show that there is little room for predicting how other readers might value texts after identifying the texts that some value. However, the student responses reveal a level of articulate thought as to why their particular texts were valued.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".