Faculty in the Applied and Pure Sciences May Have Limited Experience with E-books
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
A Review of: Bierman, J., Ortega, L., & Rupp-Serrano, K. (2010). E-book usage in pure and applied sciences. Science & technology libraries, 29(1-2), 69-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/01942620903579393 Abstract Objective – To determine the usage of and attitudes toward e-books among faculty in the applied and pure sciences. Design – Online survey and in-person interviews. Setting – A large public university in the United States. Subjects – 11 faculty members. Methods – Participants completed an 11-item survey covering demographic data and questions about electronic book experience and preferences. This was followed up by an in-person interview with the researchers. The interviews were structured into three sections: opening questions about e-book usage, an interactive demonstration and discussion of two preselected e-books, and final follow-up questions. Interviews followed a general script of prepared questions, but also encouraged open discussion and dialogue. Main Results – Most participants in the study reported limited experience with e-books and only 3 of the 11 participants reported using library-purchased e-books in their research and instruction. Participants noted ease of access and searchability as key advantages of e-books. Concerns included the belief that reading and learning is more difficult on a desktop computer, as well as concerns about the stability and reliability of e-book access. Participants also felt negatively about the necessity to create a new login profile and password to access e-books. The study found no difference in the way faculty in pure and applied sciences approached e-books. Conclusion – The authors determine that e-books will likely become more commonly used in academia. Users want e-books that are easy to use and customizable. In addition, the authors conclude that librarians need to understand their patrons’ needs as e-book users and proactively promote and market their e-book collections.
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 | 0.003 | 0.190 |
| 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