When possible, use the most authoritative source in your work, but one should balance this out with the additional work required to find and quote that source versus taking it from a secondary and reliable source.

Academic researchers ought to default to the original and most authoritative, but others may find it more expedient and just as valuable to rely on secondary sources.

I've read this statistic many times, but where is the original source?

It's here: Federal Reserve Bank, “Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2019” (Washington DC: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 2020).

This fact is repeated several times throughout the book. At least 3 by my count.

Providing secondary evidence helps the authors construct the basis of the research subject and support the main claims.

The authors mention secondary evidence to discuss the correlation between high anxiety levels and academic progress. This is done to establish the main claim and building blocks of the study that is to be conducted.

The author cites a secondary source to present his claim through a similar opinion

The author uses secondary sources to back up his claims with evidence and support his argument

The author effectively used a secondary source to propose an explanation and a theory for the reason students may suffer from anxiety symptoms. The source provides a credible basis on which the author was able to build a claim upon.

The author used a secondary source as evidence and to make a point that mood has an effect on the performance as well, explaining that students who were less anxious or concerned seemed to score higher grades

The author used the definition to draw connection and reach the conclusion that academic performance is affected by anxiety, using the source to support the claim

The author uses the mentioned secondary sources as a basis to establish a connection between the provided definition of anxiety and the concept that it has negative effects on the lives of students

Page 122

Borgman on terms used by the humanities and social sciences to describe data and other types of analysis

humanist and social scientists frequently distinguish between primary and secondary information based on the degree of analysis. Yet this ordering sometimes conflates data, sources, and resources, as exemplified by a report that distinguishes "primary resources, E. G., Books close quotation from quotation secondary resources, eat. Gee., Catalogs close quotation . Resources also categorized as primary or sensor data, numerical data, and field notebooks, all of which would be considered data in the sciences. Rarely would books, conference proceedings, and feces that the report categorizes as primary resources be considered data, except when used for text-or data-mining purposes. Catalogs, subject indices, citation indexes, search engines, and web portals were classified as secondary resources. These are typically viewed as tertiary resources in the library community because they describe primary and secondary resources. The distinctions between data, sources, and resources very by discipline and circumstance. For the purposes of this book, primary resources are data, secondary resources are reports of research, whether publications or intern forms, and tertiary resources are catalogs, indexes, and directories that provide access to primary and secondary resources. Sources are the origins of these resources.

Page 10

Borgman on the merging of primary and secondary information sources .

primary and secondary information sources long to be treated as a dichotomy, with different strands of research on each. Sociologist of science study the context in which primary data are produced, or primary archivists are concerned with how those that are captured, managed, and preserved. Researchers in the field of information studies and communication investigate how scholarly publications are written, disseminated, sought, used, and reference. Librarians select, collect, organize, conserve, preserve, and provide access to scholarly publications and print and digital form. Little research has explored the continuum from primary to secondary sources, much less the entire lifecycle from data generation through the preservation of scholarly products that set those data in context.

p. 8-actually this is link to p. 7, since 8 is excluded

Another trend is the blurring of the distinction between primary sources, generally viewed as unprocessed or unanalysed data, and secondary sources that set data in context.

Good point about how this is a new thing. On the next page she discusses how we are now collpasing the traditional distinction between primary and secondary sources.