"As soon as the sword was sheathed, the book was opened again"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper deals with the question, whether reading could be forgotten by skilled readers deprived from reading during a long period. Forty questionnaires and interviews of Israeli Holocaust survivors - who actually were cut off from all reading activities during their imprison - were analyzed and summarized. A number of interesting facts came up: There was hardly any desire or possibility to read in KZ-Camps, nevertheless a strong strive for a high cultural level was felt in order to keep the minds sane, such as 'reading as if' in many variations: Reading by heart, citing poems, discussing philosophic questions, imagining recipes, etc. were reported as a means to conserve the taste of reading. But, reading Camp-orders or an occasional piece of paper was not considered reading (only books or newspapers), while writing even a tiny single note was considered writing. The first reading-experience after liberation was "strange," but only in a few cases was real difficulty encountered in going back to reading, in no case was reading forgotten. General sadness was expressed about the lost years of reading. After release: free newspaper reading was not only expressed as "back to literature," but served as a means to the acquisition of the new language (Hebrew). Only very few cases indicated reading encouragement or ambitious book-education of the second generation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.018 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".