Bibliotherapy : A qualitative study of applied bibliotherapy outside Sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bibliotherapy is a therapeutic method with book reading and dialogues about literature as its primary focus. It is a method that can be used for reading promotion purposes. Bibliotherapy is relatively unexplored in Sweden. The purpose of this thesis is to investigate how bibliotherapy is applied outside Sweden. The thesis deals with questions regarding what reading promotion activities as well as what work steps and work roles, within the framework of bibliotherapy, that appear in the empirical material. The thesis also discusses possible challenges and obstacles, related to the practice of bibliotherapy that appear in the empirical material. The analysis method is deductive, qualitative, thematic content analysis. The empirical material consists of twelve research articles. The theoretical framework is a psychological perspective on literature combined with reading bibliotherapy and interactive bibliotherapy. It was found that bibliotherapy is applied in collaboration between libraries, health care, schools and social authorities. Bibliotherapeutic models/activities such as Books on prescription, Read Yourself Well (RYW), Reading and You Service/Schemes (RAYS) and Read aloud groups are common in United Kingdom, but several of them also occurs in Australia, Canada, Netherlands, South Africa and USA. Establishing cooperation partners, Choose literature, Lead book circles and Conversations about literature are current work steps/roles. Getting to know individuals deeply in order to be able to determine appropriate literature is a challenge, but it strengthens the psychological perspective on literature as a unifying link between bibliotherapy and reading promotion activities. Funding, Marketing and Lack of knowledge about bibliotherapy are other challenges.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".