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
Purpose This paper aims to investigate the reading format choices of students in a reading-intensive course when faced with options of purchasing their assigned readings in print, borrowing them from library reserves, accessing them from their course website or any combination thereof. It also seeks to map their behaviors to their academic aptitudes and achievements. Design/methodology/approach An online survey was distributed at the end of the quarter consisting of nine multiple-choice and open-ended questions on their format behaviors and academic aptitudes. Descriptive statistics, Chi-square tests and content analysis were used to obtain results. Findings Most students in this study purchased print copies of their assigned readings even though they were available for free both in the library and online. Over 72 per cent read their assignments either in“print” or “mostly in print”. However, the data did not produce evidence of correlations between format behaviors and SAT Writing scores or final grades in the course. Research limitations/implications The self-selected sample of participants appears to be academically homogeneous without enough diversity of behaviors and aptitudes to make generalizations. Replication of this study should be performed among a more academically diverse group of students. Originality/value Studies show that students prefer print to electronic format for academic readings, but they often cite factors like cost and convenience that impact their behaviors. Rather than survey general preferences, this study examines actual behaviors when presented with several format options and discusses why students make their choices.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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