Időskorúak, szeniorok olvasási kedve, olvasási palettája, olvasáshoz való viszonya = Reading for Its Own Sake, Range of Interest in Reading and Relation to Reading in case of Elderly People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A tanulmány az elméleti alapok bemutatása után elsősorban két kutatás eredményeire hivatkozva próbál meg általános érvényű megállapításokat tenni az időskorúak olvasásával, olvasáshoz, irodalomhoz való viszonyával kapcsolatban. A kutatás az alapvető kérdések mellett (például mennyit és mit olvasnak az idősek) különös figyelmet szentel a korosztály műfaji érdeklődésének, a „nem olvasóknak”, illetve a nem olvasás indokainak ebben a klaszterben. Az eredmények közül kiemelendő, hogy a megkérdezettek – miközben alig 2%-uk rendelkezik e-olvasóval – 12%-a olvasott már könyvet laptopon, illetve az is, hogy a korosztály műfaji érdeklődése láthatóan megváltozott a korábbi mérésekben tapasztaltakhoz képest. Fontos adat, hogy a saját bevallásuk szerint sem olvasók majdnem negyede a meggyengült látására hivatkozott, ugyanakkor egyértelműen mérhető a televízió erős „elszippantó hatása” is a könyvkultúrától. \n \nAfter introducing the theoretical background, this study aims to provide general conclusions about the reading of elderly people and their relation to reading and literature—primarily based on the results of two research projects. Besides essential questions such as what and how often elderly people read, this research pays special attention to the genre interest of this generation, to the ‘non-readers’, and to the reasons for not reading in this cluster. It must be highlighted that 12 percent of the respondents have read a book on a laptop already, while hardly 2 percent of them have an e-book reader, and that the genre interest of this generation has clearly changed compared to results in earlier research. It is important to note that almost one quarter of the nonreaders referred to their weakened sight as a reason for not reading; however, the distracting effect of television from reading culture can be clearly measured.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".