Bibliographic record
Abstract
We originally studied affordances to design products that encourage resource-efficient behavior in users. This paper was motivated by the observation that a lack of resources affected the ability of impoverished slum residents to perceive affordances. Data gathered from a trip to Bangladesh support recent postulations that affordance perception depends on user intention and socio-cultural norms, which are also influenced by fixation and training. We thus became interested in how absence, whether of material, components, or entire products, affected the utility of objects. We describe three dimensions of absence, one major and two minor. The major dimension is used to express the range of physical absence, i.e., of material in a part, of a part in a product, and of the entire product. Minor dimensions include the extent of user control and the permanence of absence, each of which can be used to increase utility in objects. We provide existing examples along these dimensions and describe concepts along the major, physical dimension of absence. We propose that the affordance of absence can be used as an approach to identify novel affordances, and conclude by placing it in the context of existing affordance-based design methods.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".