Perceptions of Affordance in an Academic Library: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Applies ecological psychology’s concept of “affordance” to graduate students’ information behaviours given design decisions made by academic librarians. Qualitative interviews explore how students perceive and use the library’s various tools (e.g., books, databases, instructional sessions, librarians, etc.), and how students’ activities reflect librarians’ perceptions of what these tools can do.Application du concept de psychologie écologique de « l’affordance » sur les comportements informationnels des étudiants de 2e cycle concernant les décisions de conception prises par les bibliothécaires universitaires. Des entrevues qualitatives explorent la manière dont les étudiants perçoivent et utilisent divers outils de la bibliothèque (par exemple : les livres, les base de données, les sessions de formation, les bibliothécaires, etc.) et la manière dont les activités des étudiants reflètent les perceptions des bibliothécaires sur ce que ces outils peuvent faire.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.040 |
| 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".