Making Choices: What Readers Say About Choosing Books to Read for Pleasure
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
This paper analyses 194 open-ended interviews with committed readers who read for pleasure, focussing in particular on interviewees’ responses to questions about how they choose and how they reject a book. The analysis suggests that a comprehensive model for the process of choosing books for pleasure-reading must include five related elements that are examined in the paper: the reading experience wanted by the reader; alerting sources the reader uses; elements in a book that the reader takes into account in making book choices; clues on the book itself; and costs to the reader in getting access to a particular book. The paper concludes with implications of this research for librarians in the intermediary role of matching reader to book. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678, E-mail address: <getinfo@haworthpressinc.com> Website: <http://www.haworthpressim.com>]
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 | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.109 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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