What We Have Been Missing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main aim of this chapter is to explicitly identify the theoretical and empirical manipulations and influences of goals during reading and situate them within broader theories of text processing. With this aim in mind, first we discuss the role of reading goals in current theoretical models of reading comprehension. Second, we discuss the goal-focusing model of relevance that attempts to explain the impacts of goals on reading comprehension and clarify a few issues of terminology in synthesizing the extant literature. Third, we briefly review research that focused on the study of reading goals as relevance instructions on text comprehension. Fourth, we discuss empirical findings from recent research, as well as our own, in an attempt to explore further how relevance instructions influence readers’ goals and actual cognitive processes during reading. At the conclusion of the chapter, we suggest several future directions that directly relate to both the theoretical specification and measurement of readers’ goals during reading.
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 | 0.009 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.167 | 0.077 |
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".