MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How does a book live after buying: the results of the survey

2020· article· en· W4255369005 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueВісник Книжкової палати · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Science and Information
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)PublishingNoveltyAdvertisingPsychologyHistorySocial psychologyBusinessPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.168 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it