Exploration of affordances in subscription-based digital magazines
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
This study analyzed 128 digital magazines through the lens of affordance theory in order to analyze the current state of digital publishing and establish a framework for the design and development of digital magazines. Twenty affordances were identified and categorized into four distinct groups: extend content, community involvement, utility, and entertainment. Overall, a nonlinear relationship between the number of digital subscriptions and the variety of affordances implemented in a magazine was identified. Additionally, the 20 affordances identified were analyzed against three previously established frameworks, including Gibson’s original categorization of perceived, hidden, and false affordances. This study provides valuable information for the media industry regarding the application of the theory of affordance and how it applies to digital magazines. In order for a digital magazine to be perceived as a successful adaptation of the print issue, it must provide the end user with a unique and immersive experience
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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