Ambient smart environments: affordances, allostasis, and wellbeing
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 In this paper we assess the functionality and therapeutic potential of ambient smart environments. We argue that the language of affordances alone fails to do justice to the peculiar functionality of this ambient technology, and draw from theoretical approaches based on the free energy principle and active inference. We argue that ambient smart environments should be understood as playing an'upstream' role, shaping an agent's field of affordances in real time, in an adaptive way that supports an optimal grip on a field of affordances. We characterise this optimal grip using precision weighting, and in terms of allostatic control, drawing an analogy with the role of precision weighting in metacognitive processes. One key insight we present is that ambient smart environments may support allostatic control not only by simplifying an agent's problem space, but by increasing uncertainty, in order to destabilise calcified, sub-optimal, psychological and behavioural patterns. In short, we lay an empirically-grounded theoretical foundation for understanding ambient smart environments, and for answering related philosophical questions around agency, trust, and subjective wellbeing.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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