Bibliographic record
Abstract
The results of the study about books' life after buying are described in the article. The main objective of the study is to reveal how readers use a book in consumer culture. We tried to answer such questions: if the novelty is important for our attitude to the book; for which necessities people buy books; if the book is an item for one-time use or it is reusable in fact; how often people use the home or public libraries etc. 221 people completed this questionnaire (65,6% — women, 34,4% — men). Three-quarters of respondents are under the age of 35, 19% — readers aged 36 to 50 years old, 5,5% — over 51. One part of the questions deals with buying books, other ones — with using them. According to the survey, 43% of readers buy used books, a little over a quarter don't do it, other readers sometimes can buy second-hand books. Almost half of the readers do not pay attention to whether the book is a novelty of the publishing house; half of the respondents are ready to buy a book published a few years ago if the topic is of interest. The majority choose fictional books for personal or professional development. Almost half of the respondents buy books as a gift (more often for children than for adults). The questions about using books gave us the following results. Only about one-sixth of survey participants often borrow books from friends, while about 57% are willing to share their books with other people. More than half of respondents occasionally reread books stored at home, but 42% of people don't do this. Less than 15% of respondents are active users of public libraries. Most respondents prefer reading at home on the bed or the couch, almost 70% also like reading in transport. About half of the respondents make no mark in the books, the rest can emphasize, bookmark, perish corners, write comments, etc. The results of the research can be used to study the behavior of buyers by publishing houses or bookstores, to design the publication, in the study of consumer culture in general, etc.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".