J.J. Gibson and Marshall McLuhan: A survey of terminology and a proposed extension of the theory of affordances
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Psychologist James J. Gibson coined the word “affordance” in 1979, to describe the relationship between the abilities of a living creature, and features in the environment that afford action for those abilities. An affordance, therefore, is physically real, but is defined as an affordance only in reference to a particular creature. This term has been widely adopted, and is now found in design, education, and cognitive science. Sometimes it is used in Gibson's original meaning, but it has also been applied to broader discussions of social and cognitive activities, resulting in a certain confusion of terminology. A short summary reveals the variety of current uses for the term, and goes further to propose that this range may be simplified by applying Marshall McLuhan's observation that “media are the extensions of mankind.” In that analysis, an object like a cup is an extension of cupped hands, because, like hands, it holds water. Defining some objects as body‐extensions makes it clear that affordances can be modified in two ways: by changing either features that are available in the environment, or the extended abilities of the user. This distinction simplifies the description of different types of affordances, and may help designers in planning effective experiences for users.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it