What Are Students Reading? An Exploratory Study of Bookstore Acquisitions for Introductory Family Science Courses
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
This exploratory analysis examined publicly available assigned course readings from undergraduate degree programs in Family Science within universities across the United States and Canada. It illustrates the constellation of resources used during one semester. Issues related to publication processes, relevance, discipline-specificity, accessibility, and representation are explored. Results demonstrate that five of the eight most frequently textbooks focus on individual development and societal context, one focuses largely on human development and family studies, and one on family and consumer sciences as distinct fields of inquiry and employment. Findings indicate consideration needs to be given to the ways in which reading selection impacts relevant knowledge being disseminated to students in the field of Family Science, particularly given the heavy reliance on commercially published textbooks. Results point to the need for discipline-specific resources, which could be achieved by scholars with interdisciplinary backgrounds and training in family scholarship. Recommendations for enhancing the existing state of Family Science resources through emphasis on accessibility, usability, and inclusion are provided, with implications and suggestions for future research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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