本研究旨在探討小說讀者資訊尋找心智模型，利用概念圖法與訪談法引導小說讀者尋找資訊的方式，再以資源描述框架模式標誌方式表徵讀者繪製的心智模型。此外，對照讀者心智模型至書目記錄功能需求（Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records, FRBR）與權威資料功能需求（Functional Requirements for Authority Data，FRAD）模型的實體與關係，比較兩者異同情形，期能提供小說資訊描述相關建議，並運用於小說資訊組織實務。
本研究共歸納為41種資料元素並分為九大類外，亦發現元素出現次數並未具備長尾定律、80/20法則與冪次定律等現象。讀者以多元的基本路徑尋找小說，以出現頻率高的書名與作者等元素作為起點。書名作為終點次數極端，代表其他元素較少輔助尋找外的使用者任務，中介元素則具有齊夫定律的最小努力原則現象，且可經由二至四個元素達成需求。作品類、出版類、作者類、外觀尺寸類與故事內容類元素導航功能較高，但讀者已知資訊可能影響作者類的導航。
心智模型對照至FRBR與FRAD模型方面，基本路徑分為完全對照、部份可對照與完全無法對照三種。主要研究結果如下：
1. 39.8%路徑可完全對照至FRBR與FRAD模型實體關係。讀者主要需求為作品與內容版本間摘要、補充、續集、實現與插圖關係，重視第一組與第二組實體的創作關係，並以多樣的團體與載體版本關係瞭解小說。路徑可能因FRBR與FRAD模型部分實體與關係定義較不明確而對照至複數關係。對照複數關係的路徑中有9.1%實體關係屬於權威資料功能需求，且提供32.5%導航路徑，可能代表FRBR與FRAD模型導航功能不如預期。
2. 部份對照路徑數量佔總體34.8%，也常被小說讀者使用。讀者易建立作品與單件的直接路徑。常被提出的個人與團體協同關係無相符實體關係。讀者多用第三組實體表示故事內容，且不視為主題。讀者鏈結個人與第三組實體以瞭解作者相關資訊，第三組實體間的鏈結用於表達故事背景。前述鏈結與內容版本摘要屬性資訊類似，推測是因資訊粒度判斷差異，或摘要屬性範疇不明確。
3. 時間與感受元素相關路徑完全無法對照，佔總路徑數25.3%。時間在讀者未知意義時需求相對提高，主要滿足FRBR尋找任務需求。感受元素顯示讀者喜歡以主觀判斷尋找小說資訊，依鏈結對象等結果，感受元素應被用於辨識任務。感受元素是讀者主觀評價判斷，不宜視為內容版本評論屬性。
本研究建議FRBR與FRAD模型明確界定第一組書目實體範圍，並具體定義特定實體關係。此外，應再研議實體屬性種類及使用方式，根據既有實體關係開放更多語意關係。最後，建議FRBR與FRAD模型給予時間與感受相關元素相應位置。

This study is aim to explore fiction readers’ mental model of information finding. Interview and concept mapping method are used to guide participant to show their mental models as linked data by Resource Description Framework (RDF) triple. This study also mapping participants’ mental model to entities and relationships defined by Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and Functional Requirements for Authority Data (FRAD). This research expect to recommend for practice of fiction information description, by find out differences between fiction readers’ mental model and FRBR and FRAD.
Research result in section of fiction reader’s mental model, consolidate 41 kinds of data elements from participant concept maps, and classified in nine categories: Works, Author, Story Content, Physical Dimension, Publishing, Feeling, Reviews, and Experience. Data elements occurrence frequency do not show the phenomenon of The Long Tail, 20/80 Law and Power Law. Fiction readers use multiple routes to find fiction they need, and commence the route with elements with occurrence in high frequency, like title of work and author elements. Title of work also has high frequency to be the end of routes, this represents that other data elements were less to use for other user tasks defined by FRBR, beside find tasks. Intermediary elements’ occurrence frequency conformed principle of least effort in Zipf’s law. Two to four elements can meet fiction reader’s demand of finding. Elements from class of Works, Publishing, Author, Physical Dimension, and Story Content, provide higher functionality of navigation to reader. Author class elements' navigation may influenced by reader’s known information. 
Research results in section of mapping reader’s mental model’s routes to FRBR and FRAD entity relationships are divide into three parts: complete mapping, part mapping, and unable mapping. Main finding of each part are as follows:
(1)	Totally 39.8% routes complete mapping to FRBR or FRAD relationships. Work/Expression entity relationships of summary, complement, successor, realization, and illustrate of text, are mostly needed by fiction readers. Fiction readers attach importance to FRBR Group1/Group2 relationship of Create, and use multiple routes of Manifestation/Corporate Body to aware the fiction they want. Route may mapping to multiple relationship when FRBR and FRAD defined entity relationships unclear.  Relationships that FRAD relationships rate 9.1% of all multiple mapped relationships, and the relationships provide navigation routes in 32.5%, imply navigation function of FRBR and FRAD possibly not as expected. 
(2)	34.8% routes can part mapping FRBR or FRAD relationships. Routes in this part link most number of different data elements, and has higher utility rate. Fiction readers prefer to link entities of Work and Item.  The Corporate Body/Person relationships, that fiction readers frequently proposed and consider as coordination relationship, do not exist in FRBR or FRAD. Fiction readers use FRBR Group3 entities to display story content, rather than as subject of work. Fiction readers use routes between FRBR Group2/Group3 to understand authors’ information, and use routes between FRBR Group3 four entities to understand story content. Routes that between Group2/Group3 and Group3 four entities resemble the summary property of Expression, difference of granularity of information that participants identified and unclear definition of Expression summary property are inferenced as causes of this phenomenon. 
(3)	Routes related to feeling relate elements and Time-span elements take up 25.3% of all, unable mapping to relationships of FRBR and FRAD. Time-span elements’ has higher importance when the meaning of time-span not realized by fiction readers. Feeling relate elements show that fiction readers prefer to find fiction by self-judgment. Based on results like the kinds of elements linked to feeling relate elements, feeling relate elements possibly be used in FRBR user task identify. Feeling relate elements origin from readers’ subjective judgment, it possibly different to critical response property of Expression.
Based on research finding, Suggestion for FRBR and FRAD are as follows:
(1)	FRBR and FRAD supposed to clear defined the scope of FRBR Group 1 entities, and make relationships definition more specific.
(2)	Entities may need to discuss the properties and usage, defined more semantic relationships that based on existing relationships. 
(3)	FRBR and FRAD supposed to accede to feeling relate and Time-span elements.

第一章	緒論	1
第一節	研究背景與動機	1
第二節	研究目的與問題	3
第三節	研究範圍與限制	4
第四節	研究貢獻	4
第五節	名詞解釋	5
第二章	文獻探討	7
第一節	小說讀者的特質	7
第二節	小說讀者的資訊尋找相關研究	10
第三節	小說資訊描述與檢索相關研究	16
第四節	書目世界心智模型相關研究	17
第三章	研究設計與實施	25
第一節	研究設計與概念	25
第二節	研究對象與試驗書籍之設計	26
第三節	資料收集與分析	30
第四節	資料收集流程	38
第四章	研究結果與分析	43
第一節	小說讀者資訊尋找包含之資料元素與鏈結路徑	43
第二節	小說讀者資料元素與鏈結及FRBR與FRAD預設路徑相似程度	60
第五章	結論與建議	81
第一節	研究結論	81
第二節	對FRBR與FRAD概念模型的建議	85
第三節	研究限制與未來研究建議	86
參考文獻	89
附錄一	以作品實例研究使用者心智模型之研究設計與研究結果	99
附錄二	試驗用書之書目資料	100
附錄三	讀者問卷	101
附錄四	讀者訪談大綱	104
附錄五	讀者研究參與者知情同意書	106
附錄六	訪談1-3題示意圖	107
附錄七	資料元素細節一覽表	109
附錄八	基本路徑一覽表	112
附錄九	基本路徑起點終點計數表	119
附錄十	不重複中介路徑一覽表	121
附錄十一	不重複完整路徑內容與數量一覽表	125
附錄十二	完全對照路徑一覽表	137
附錄十三	部分對照路徑一覽表	144
附錄十四	無法對照路徑一覽表	152
附錄十五	受訪者小說資訊尋找概念圖	156
 
表次
表2-1 讀者偏好或引起借閱興趣之書本元素	16
表3-1 資料元素分類表	34
表3-2 受訪小說讀者相關背景之人數統計	41

 
圖次
圖3-1 研究架構圖	28
圖3-2 資料收集與分析流程圖	39
圖4-1 資料元素出現數量橫條圖	45
圖4-2 基本路徑數量與出現次數分布情形	50
圖4-3 資料元素作為起點與終點頻率統計	52
圖4-4 中介元素數量種類比例和概念圖數量關係圖	57
圖4-5 資料元素類目間導航能力熱度圖	58
圖4-6 路徑對照至FRBR與FRAD模型之相關基本資料統計	61
圖4-7 可完全對照路徑對照至FRBR與FRAD書目實體之鏈結比例	70
圖4-8 部分對照路徑對照至FRBR與FRAD書目實體之鏈結比例	76
圖4-9 無法對照路徑之鏈結對象元素對照至FRBR與FRAD書目實體之比例	80

中華民國教育部(2015)。小說。在教育部重編國語字典修訂本。檢索日期：2020年6月2日，自http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cgi-bin/cbdic/gsweb.cgi?o=dcbdic
&searchid=Z00000107031
文化部(2019)。107年臺灣民眾閱讀及消費行為調查報告。檢索自https://stat.moc.g
ov.tw/Research_Download.aspx?idno=1128
吳秋燕(2016)。推理小說愛好者的閱讀選擇與資訊交換行為(未出版之碩士論文)。臺灣大學，臺北市。
吳英美(1998)。視障讀者對有聲書的需求調查─以彰化師大圖書館為例。書苑季刊，38。檢索日期：2020年6月2日，自https://www.nlpi.edu.tw/JournalDe
tailC003313.aspx?Cond=6eba3a2a-cfa2-469a-9909-b77e51533d4d
吳曉琪(2005)。如何踏出成功閱讀課的第一步─以兒童/青少年小說帶入高中英文課程之行動研究。兒童文學學刊，(13)，183-211。doi: 10.6739/ttchl.200507_
(13).0008
林巧敏(2011)。臺灣國小學童數位閱讀興趣與行為之調查分析。國家圖書館館刊，100(2)，30-59。
林奇秀(2019)。吸引力要素與小說的組織與檢索。圖資與檔案學刊，11(2)。doi: 10.6575/JILA.201912_(95).0001
林維真、岳修平(2012)。大學生閱讀行為與電子書閱讀器需求之初探研究。圖書資訊學刊，10(2)，113-142。doi: 10.6182/jlis.2012.10(2).113
邱天助(2009)。老人的閱讀習慣與公共圖書館閱讀需求之調查研究。臺灣圖書館管理季刊，5(3)，11-30。
國家圖書館圖書館事業發展組(2014a)。102年臺灣民眾閱讀力穩定提升。在『讀』領風騷：臺灣102年閱讀習慣調查結果暨公共圖書館好書書目發表記者會活動手冊(頁1-6)。檢索日期2020年6月2日，自https://nclfile.ncl.edu.tw/nclhisto
ry/upload/P1030311001/cats/1-6.pdf
國家圖書館圖書館事業發展組(2014b)。102年臺灣民眾閱讀興趣。在『讀』領風騷：臺灣102年閱讀習慣調查結果暨公共圖書館好書書目發表記者會活動手冊(頁7-34)。臺北市：國家圖書館。檢索日期：2020年6月2日，自https://ncl
file.ncl.edu.tw/nclhistory/upload/P1030311001/cats/07-34.pdf
國家圖書館圖書館事業發展組(2015)。讀饗幸福：臺灣103年閱讀習慣調查結果記者會暨借閱楷模表揚典禮活動手冊。臺北市：國家圖書館。檢索日期：2020年6月2日，自https://www.ncl.edu.tw/downloadfile_url?url=nclhistory/upload/P
1040211002/cats/0207借閱手冊確認.p7-36調查報告.pdf&filename=臺灣103年閱讀習慣調查報告.p7-36調查報告.pdf&dimg=true
國家圖書館圖書館事業發展組(2016)。讀饗幸福：臺灣104年閱讀習慣調查結果記者會暨借閱楷模表揚典禮活動手冊。臺北市：國家圖書館。檢索日期：2020年6月2日，自https://nclfile.ncl.edu.tw/files/201701/bc3acd2c-1f36-48a1-bac4-6125283c5d4c.pdf
國家圖書館圖書館事業發展組(2017)。讀饗幸福：臺灣105年閱讀習慣調查結果記者會暨借閱楷模表揚典禮活動手冊。臺北市：國家圖書館。檢索日期：2020年6月2日，自https://nclfile.ncl.edu.tw/files/201705/bd061ac8-9123-48ad-819f-ed047179fbb6.pdf
國家圖書館圖書館事業發展組(2018)。106年臺灣閱讀風貌發布暨社區資訊站啟動記者會活動手冊。臺北市：國家圖書館。檢索日期：2020年6月2日，自https://nclfile.ncl.edu.tw/files/201803/47e7c5e1-0f39-427e-9fb7-67d28da5b037.
pdf
國家圖書館圖書館事業發展組(2019)。107年臺灣閱讀風貌及全民閱讀力年度報告。臺北市：國家圖書館。檢索日期：2020年6月2日，自https://nclfile.ncl.edu.t
w/files/201904/c67ea82a-e708-4259-8f55-79413cba70e6.pdf
張子超(2000)。立意取樣。在教育大詞書。檢索日期：2020年6月2日，自http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1304283/
張淑華(2006)。我國公共圖書館讀者諮詢顧問服務需求之研究-以小說之成人讀者為例(未出版之碩士論文)。臺灣大學，臺北市。
張博雅(2009)。從意義建構取向探討國立中央圖書館臺灣分館之視障服務(未出版之碩士論文)。臺灣大學，臺北市。
張簡碧芬(2010)。小說閱讀對大學生之情緒療癒效用分析研究(未出版之碩士論文)。臺灣大學，臺北市。
莊道明(2012)。滾雪球取樣。在圖書館學與資訊科學大辭典。檢索日期：2020年6月2日，自http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1678729/
許如星(2016)。書目紀錄功能需求之使用者研究：使用者書目世界心智模型之初探─以《聖經》作品為例(未出版之碩士論文)。臺灣大學，臺北市。
許韻芝(2015)。公共圖書館使用者休閒體驗與場所依附之關係-以國立公共資訊圖書館為例(未出版之碩士論文)。中興大學，臺中市。
陳怡佩(2006)。視覺障礙兒童及青少年的資訊需求。臺灣圖書館管理季刊，2(3)，32-43。
陳冠華(2002)。網路使用者小說閱讀行為之研究。教育資料與圖書館學，40(2)，243-269。
陳書梅、程書珍(2013)。公共圖書館發展性兒童書目療法服務需求之研究。國家圖書館館刊，102(2)，1-34。
陳珮慈(1996)。成人閱讀之研究-以台北市立圖書館永春分館讀者為例。圖書與資訊學刊，(18)，41-61。
黃秋芳(2002)。黃易從歷史真實跨向武俠虛構。國文天地，18(7)，10-15。
蔡智欣、陳靖雯(2015)。以電影輔助英文小說閱讀─探討學生的觀點與策略運用。弘光人文社會學報，(18)，137-170。
戴以禮(2019年6月11日)。「爆雷一時爽，全家火葬場？」——淺談爆雷與防雷的文化脈絡和心理機制。放映週報。檢索日期：2020年6月2日，自http://www.funscreen.com.tw/feature.asp?FE_No=1818
嚴媚玲(1999)。大學生的閱讀活動與其管道之研究(未出版之碩士論文)。淡江大學，新北市。
Adkins, D., & Bossaller, J. E. (2007). Fiction access points across computer-mediated book information sources: A comparison of online bookstores, reader advisory databases, and public library catalogs. Library & Information Science Research, 29(3), 354-368. doi: 10.1016/j.lisr.2007.03.004
Budanović, M. P., & Žumer, M. (2015). Investigating mental models of cataloguers as the first step towards the development of intuitive cataloguer’s tools. In Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium on Information Science (pp. 106–117).
Budanović, M. P., Švab, K., & Žumer, M. (2018). The gap between users and cataloguers: perception of importance of bibliographic data for required reading and leisure reading. Libellarium: Journal for the Research of Writing, Books, and Cultural Heritage Institutions, 1(1). doi: 10.15291/libellarium.v1i1.322
Cossham, A. F. (2013). Bibliographic records in an online environment. Information Retrieval, 18(3). Retrieved June 2, 2020 from http://InformationR.net/ir/18-3/colis/paperC42.html
Courtright, C. (2007). Context in information behavior research. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 273-306. doi: 10.1002/aris.2007.1440410113
Gilbert, J., & Fister, B. (2011). Reading, Risk, and Reality: College Students and Reading for Pleasure. College & Research Libraries, 72(5), 474–495. doi: 10.5860/crl-148
Harej, V., & Žumer, M. (2013). Analysis of FRBR user tasks. Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, (7), 741-759. doi: 10.1080/01639374.2013.785461
Hicks, A., & Lloyd, A. (2018). Seeing information: visual methods as entry points to information practices. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 50(3), 229-238. doi: 10.1177/0961000618769973
Hopper, R. (2005). What are teenagers reading? Adolescent fiction reading habits and reading choices. Literacy, 39(3), 113-120. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9345.2005.00409.x
Huang, A., & Nathan-Roberts, D. (2019). Searching for fiction for pleasure reading: Current research and recommendations. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 63(1), 1590–1594. doi: 10.1177/1071181319
631468
Huysmans, F., & Hillebrink, C.(2008). The future of the Dutch public library: Ten years on. The Hague: Netherlands Institute for Social Research, SCP.
IFLA Study Group on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (IFLA Study Group on the FRBR). (1998). Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records: Final report. München: K. G. Saur. Retrieved June 2, 2020 from https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/cataloguing/frbr/frbr_2008.pdf
IFLA Functional Requirements and Numbering of Authority Records (IFLA FRANAR). (2008). Functional Requirements for Authority Data: A Conceptual Model. München: K. G. Saur. Retrieved April 25, 2021 from https://www.ifla.org/files/ass
ets/cataloguing/frad/frad_2013.pdf
International Reading Association (IRA). (2014). Leisure reading. Retrieved June 2, 2020 from http://literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/leisu
re-reading-position-statement.pdf
Kari, J., & Hartel, J. (2007). Information and higher things in life: Addressing the pleasurable and the profound in information science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(8), 1131-1147. doi: doi.org/10.1002/asi.20585
Library of Congress (LC). (2020). Library of Congress Genre/Form Terms. Retrieved 28 July, 2020, from http://id.loc.gov/authorities/genreForms.html
Loan, F. A., & Shah, R. (2017). Survey of the literature reading habits and preferences of adolescents: A study of a public school in India. Library and Information Science Research Electronic Journal, 27(2), 80-96. doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10154.06081
McCreadie, M., & Rice, R. E. (1999). Trends in analyzing access to information. Part I: cross-disciplinary conceptualizations of access. Information Processing & Management, 35(1), 45-76. doi: 10.1016/S0306-4573(98)00037-5
McCutcheon, S. (2012). RDA and the reference librarian: What to expect from the new cataloging standard. The Reference Librarian, 53(2), 123-137. doi: 10.1080/02763877.2011.607409
Merga, M. (2017). Do males really prefer non-fiction, and why does it matter?. English in Australia, 52(1), 27-35.
Michell, G., & Dewdney, P. (1998). Mental models theory: Applications for library and information science. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 39(4), 275-281. doi: 10.2307/40324303
Mikkonen, A. (2017). Fiction Readers' Book Search in Public Library Catalogs. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.
Mikkonen, A., & Vakkari, P. (2012, August). Readers' search strategies for accessing books in public libraries. In Proceedings of the 4th Information Interaction in Context Symposium (pp. 214-223). doi: 10.1145/2362724.2362760
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).(2008). Reading on the rise: A new chapter in American literacy. Retrieved June 2, 2020 from https://www.arts.gov/sites/def
ault/files/ReadingonRise.pdf
Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things (Revised and expanded ed.). New York: Basic books.
Ooi, K., & Liew, C. L. (2011). Selecting fiction as part of everyday life information seeking. Journal of Documentation, 67(5), 748-772. doi: 10.1108/0022041111116
4655
Pejtersen, A. M., & Austin, J. (1983a). Fiction retrieval: experimental design and evaluation of a search system based on users' value criteria (part 1). Journal of Documentation, 39(4), 230-246. doi: 10.1108/eb026750
Pejtersen, A. M., & Austin, J. (1983b). Fiction retrieval: experimental design and evaluation of a search system based on users' value criteria (part 2). Journal of Documentation, 39(4), 230-246. doi: 10.1108/eb026755
Pisanski, J., & Žumer, M. (2007). Functional requirements for bibliographic records: an investigation of two prototypes. Program, 41(4), 400–417. doi: 10.1108/00330330710831602
Pisanski, J., & Žumer, M. (2010a). Mental models of the bibliographic universe. Part 1: Mental models of descriptions. Journal of Documentation, 66(5), 643–667. doi: 10.1108/00220411011066772
Pisanski, J., & Žumer, M. (2010b). Mental models of the bibliographic universe. Part 2: Comparison task and conclusions. Journal of Documentation, 66(5), 668-680. doi: 10.1108/00220411011066781
Pisanski, J., & Žumer, M. (2012). User verification of the FRBR conceptual model. Journal of Documentation, 68(4), 582-592. doi: 10.1108/00220411211239129.
Raguseo, C. (2010). Twitter fiction: Social networking and microfiction in 140 characters. TESL-EJ. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, (4). Retrieved from http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume13/ej52/ej52i
nt/?iframe=true&width=80%&height=80%
Reitz, J. M. (2020a). Bibliographic record. In Online Dictionary for Library and Information Science (ODLIS). Retrieved June 2, 2020 from https://products.abc-clio.com/ODLIS/odlis_b.aspx
Reitz, J. M. (2020b). Genre. In Online Dictionary for Library and Information Science (ODLIS). Retrieved 28 July, 2020, from https://products.abc-clio.com/ODLIS/odlis_g.aspx#genre
Reitz, J. M. (2020c). Fiction. In Online Dictionary for Library and Information Science (ODLIS). Retrieved June 2, 2020 from https://products.abc-clio.com/ODLIS/odlis_f.aspx
Riva, P., Le Bœuf, P., Žumer, M. (2017). IFLA library reference model: A conceptual model for bibliographic information. Retrieved June 2, 2020 from https://www.ifla.
org/files/assets/cataloguing/frbr-lrm/ifla-lrm-august-2017_rev201712.pdf
Ross, C. S. (1999). Finding without seeking: the information encounter in the context of reading for pleasure. Information Processing & Management, 35(6), 783-799. doi: 10.1016/S0306-4573(99)00026-6
Ross, C. S. (2000). Making choices: What readers say about choosing books to read for pleasure. The Acquisitions Librarian, 13(25), 5-21. doi: 10.1300/J101v13n25_02
Saarinen, K., & Vakkari, P. (2013). A sign of a good book: readers’ methods of accessing fiction in the public library. Journal of Documentation, 69(5), 736-754. doi: 10.1108/JD-04-2012-0041
Saarti, J. (2002). Consistency of subject indexing of novels by public library professionals and patrons. Journal of Documentation, 58(1), 49-65. doi:  10.1108/00220410210425403
Sapp, G. (1986). The levels of access: Subject approaches to fiction. RQ, 25(4), 488-497. 
Šauperl, A. (2012). Pinning down a novel: characteristics of literary works as perceived by readers. Library Review, 61(4), 286-303. doi: 10.1108/00242531211267581
Šauperl, A. (2013). Four views of a novel: Characteristics of novels as described by publishers, librarians, literary theorists, and readers. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 51(6), 624-654. doi: 10.1080/01639374.2013.773953
Spiller, D. (1980). The provision of fiction for public libraries. Journal of Librarianship, 12(4), 238-266. doi: 10.1177/096100068001200404
Svenonius, E. (2000). The intellectual foundation of information organization. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Tallerås, K., Dahl, J. H. B., & Pharo, N. (2018). User conceptualizations of derivative relationships in the bibliographic universe. Journal of Documentation, 74(4), 894-916. doi: 10.1108/JD-10-2017-0139
Tepper, S. J. (2000). Fiction reading in America: Explaining the gender gap. Poetics, 27(4), 255-275. doi: 10.1016/S0304-422X(00)00003-6
Throsby, D., Zwar, J., & Morgan, C. (2017). Australian Book Readers: Survey Method and Results. Australia: Department of Economics, Macquarie University. Retrieved June 2, 2020 from https://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/workspace/uplo
ads/files/australian-book-readers-24-05-592762e0c3ade.pdf
Uusen, A., & Müürsepp, M. (2012). Gender differences in reading habits among boys and girls of basic school in Estonia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 1795-1804. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.129
Vakkari, P., & Serola, S. (2012). Perceived outcomes of public libraries. Library & Information Science Research, 34(1), 37-44. doi: 10.1016/j.lisr.2011.07.005
Whisnant, L. A. (2003). Search strategies used by fiction readers with emphasis on usage of the online public access catalog: a survey of wake county public library patrons (Master’s thesis). Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Yu, L., & O'Brien, A. (1996). Domain of adult fiction librarianship. In Advances in Librarianship (pp. 151-189). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Zhang, Y., & Salaba, A. (2009). What is next for functional requirements for bibliographic records? A Delphi study. The Library Quarterly, 79(2), 233-255. doi: 10.1086/597078