ArticlePloS one2024
Using full-text content to characterize and identify best seller books: A study of early 20th-century literature.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artistic pieces can be studied from several perspectives, one example being their reception among readers over time. In the present work, we approach this interesting topic from the standpoint of literary works, particularly assessing the task of predicting whether a book will become a best seller. Unlike previous approaches, we focused on the full content of books and considered visualization and classification tasks. We employed visualization for the preliminary exploration of the data structure and properties, involving SemAxis and linear discriminant analyses. To obtain quantitative and more objective results, we employed various classifiers. Such approaches were used along with a dataset containing (i) books published from 1895 to 1923 and consecrated as best sellers by the Publishers Weekly Bestseller Lists and (ii) literary works published in the same period but not being mentioned in that list. Our comparison of methods revealed that the best-achieved result-combining a bag-of-words representation with a logistic regression classifier-led to an average accuracy of 0.75 both for the leave-one-out and 10-fold cross-validations. Such an outcome enhances the difficulty in predicting the success of books with high accuracy, even using the full content of the texts. Nevertheless, our findings provide insights into the factors leading to the relative success of a literary work.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.