{ "model": { "rank": 1781, "code": "thing-doctrine", "model_id": "vr.tr.doctrine", "name": "doctrine", "purpose": "a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Information and virtual systems", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "INF", "domain": "INF.KNW", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/doctrine/", "tier": 2, "score": 127, "payload": { "layer": "wordnet", "aliases": [ "theanthropism", "philosophy", "philosophical system", "school of thought", "ism", "abolitionism", "absolutism", "amoralism", "animalism", "animism", "antiestablishmentarianism", "antiestablishmentism", "asceticism", "contextualism", "creationism", "creation science", "creed", "credo", "divine right", "divine right of kings", "dogma", "dualism", "dynamism", "epicureanism", "establishmentarianism", "establishmentism", "ethicism", "expansionism", "experimentalism", "formalism", "functionalism", "gymnosophy", "imitation", "mimesis", "individualism", "laissez faire", "internationalism", "unilateralism", "one-way street", "irredentism" ], "aliasCount": 162, "merged": 127, "knownIn": 0, "facets": { "substance": "information", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert", "mobility": "not-applicable", "scale": "not-applicable", "affordances": [ "readable" ] }, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "noun.cognition", "senseRank": 0, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "oewn:2024", "synset": "oewn-05952149-n", "ili": "i68067", "license": "CC BY 4.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-06T21:50:36Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "missingProviders": [ "Grok" ], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "usd": null, "turns": null, "seconds": 2.1, "error": "Error: Internal error: {\n \"message\": \"API error (status 402 Payment Required): Grok Build usage balance exhausted\",\n \"http_status\": 402\n}", "retried": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 58.5, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.3\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a078b2-cc78-7e72-8277-1eb15e925ec6\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: doctrine\nRegistry id: vr.tr.doctrine\nPlane / domain: INF / INF.KNW\nRegistry definition: a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by " } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-DOCTRINE", "registryId": "vr.tr.doctrine", "name": "doctrine", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "INF.KNW" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/doctrine/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.doctrine", "name": "doctrine", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise a doctrine, assess its authority and standing within a specified group, and determine which interpretations, applications or changes that group permits.", "definition": "a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school", "scope_statement": "This model owns a belief or system of beliefs insofar as a particular group or school accepts it as authoritative, including its content, grounds of authority, interpretive boundaries, practical implications and continuity through change.", "in_scope": [ "Authoritative beliefs and relationships among them", "Groups or schools that accept the doctrine and the limits of that acceptance", "Sources and mechanisms through which doctrinal authority is recognised", "Permitted interpretations, disputed readings and boundaries of adherence", "Consequences for reasoning, teaching and conduct where the doctrine specifies them", "Doctrinal revision, succession, rejection and competing branches" ], "out_of_scope": [ "The full organisation, membership and governance of the accepting group", "The complete worldview or ideology surrounding the doctrine", "Source documents as publications, manuscripts or physical artefacts", "Individual beliefs that have no recognised group authority", "Procedures, policies and laws except for their relationships to doctrinal beliefs", "Independent investigation of every subject on which the doctrine makes claims" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "An identifiable group or school treats the belief as authoritative; popularity or repeated assertion alone does not establish a doctrine.", "The belief supplies an accepted basis for judgement, interpretation or teaching, rather than being only an individual opinion.", "A scientific theory or hypothesis becomes relevant here only insofar as a group accords it doctrinal authority; evidential support alone is a different relationship.", "A policy or procedure primarily directs decisions or actions; a doctrine identifies authoritative beliefs that may justify those directions.", "A creed, canon or manifesto may express a doctrine, but the doctrine is the authoritative belief content rather than the document itself." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Accepting constituency", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Identified groups, schools or subgroups, qualified by period and scope", "why_it_matters": "Authority is relative to a constituency and must not be assumed universal." }, { "name": "Authority basis", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Claimed bases such as revelation, tradition, founding teaching, institutional adoption or disciplinary consensus; multiple values permitted", "why_it_matters": "Determines which sources or acts the constituency recognises as establishing doctrinal standing." }, { "name": "Doctrinal standing", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Authoritative, provisionally authoritative, disputed, superseded, rejected or undetermined, within a named constituency and period", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes present authority from historical influence or disputed attribution." }, { "name": "Form of expression", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Explicitly formulated, reconstructed from practice or teaching, mixed, or uncertain", "why_it_matters": "Makes the agent's reconstruction distinguishable from a formulation accepted by adherents." }, { "name": "Commitment level", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Required, permitted, disputed, excluded or unspecified, assigned to individual propositions within a constituency", "why_it_matters": "Prevents every associated belief from being treated as a condition of adherence." }, { "name": "Interpretive authority", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Recognised interpreters, institutions, traditions or methods, with jurisdiction and limits", "why_it_matters": "Determines whose interpretation can settle a question for the relevant group." }, { "name": "Revision constraints", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Explicitly revisable, revisable under stated conditions, held immutable, contested or unspecified", "why_it_matters": "Separates an admissible development from a change that adherents would regard as abandonment." }, { "name": "Relationship to other doctrines", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Depends on, elaborates, competes with, rejects, succeeds or branches from, with attributed evidence", "why_it_matters": "Supports comparison without assuming that shared vocabulary means shared commitments." } ], "affordances": [ "Identify a doctrine by linking authoritative belief content to a named accepting constituency.", "Compare formulations and distinguish shared commitments from incompatible propositions.", "Assess whether a proposed interpretation falls within documented doctrinal boundaries.", "Trace a judgement or prescribed action to its doctrinal premises and interpretive assumptions.", "Evaluate a proposed revision against recognised authority and continuity criteria.", "Flag disputed standing, missing evidence or unresolved interpretation before applying the doctrine." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "authoritative-commitments", "name": "Authoritative commitments", "description": "The beliefs that constitute the doctrine and the commitments required of its adherents.", "rationale": "A doctrine must be recognisable through its authoritative content rather than merely its title or associated literature.", "layers": [ { "id": "constitutive-beliefs", "name": "Constitutive beliefs", "description": "The propositions and concepts through which the doctrine can be identified.", "findings": [ { "id": "core-propositions", "name": "Core propositions", "description": "Record the beliefs presented as constitutive, preserving source wording separately from analytical paraphrase.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which propositions does the accepting group identify as constitutive of this doctrine?", "kind": "definition", "id": "core-propositions-q01" }, { "text": "Which recognised formulations support each proposition, and where is the formulation an analyst's reconstruction?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "core-propositions-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "commitment-boundaries", "name": "Commitment boundaries", "description": "The distinction between required beliefs, optional elaborations and excluded positions.", "findings": [ { "id": "conditions-of-adherence", "name": "Conditions of adherence", "description": "Record which commitments count as necessary for adherence and which disagreements remain permissible.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which beliefs may an adherent dispute without being judged to reject the doctrine, and by whose criteria?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "conditions-of-adherence-q01" }, { "text": "Which denials or alternative beliefs are explicitly treated as incompatible with adherence?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "conditions-of-adherence-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "constituency-and-authority", "name": "Constituency and authority", "description": "Who accepts the doctrine and what makes it authoritative for them.", "rationale": "The same belief can be authoritative for one school, contested within another and merely descriptive to an outsider.", "layers": [ { "id": "accepting-groups", "name": "Accepting groups", "description": "The constituencies and periods within which doctrinal authority is claimed or evidenced.", "findings": [ { "id": "situated-acceptance", "name": "Situated acceptance", "description": "Record acceptance without equating an official position with uniform belief among members.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which group or school accepts this doctrine as authoritative, and for which subjects and periods?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "situated-acceptance-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence distinguishes official endorsement, customary acceptance and contested attribution?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "situated-acceptance-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "grounds-of-authority", "name": "Grounds of authority", "description": "Recognised sources, traditions and acts that establish or limit doctrinal standing.", "findings": [ { "id": "authority-chain", "name": "Authority chain", "description": "Record how authoritative standing is justified within the constituency, separately from independent assessment of truth.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which texts, teachers, traditions, institutions or adoption acts are recognised as conferring authority?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "authority-chain-q01" }, { "text": "When those authorities conflict, what precedence or resolution method does the group recognise?", "kind": "action", "id": "authority-chain-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "interpretation-and-disagreement", "name": "Interpretation and disagreement", "description": "How doctrinal meaning is established and how competing readings are treated.", "rationale": "An agent cannot safely derive implications from authoritative words without knowing the accepted methods and limits of interpretation.", "layers": [ { "id": "interpretive-rules", "name": "Interpretive rules", "description": "Recognised ways of reading doctrinal terms, sources and apparent contradictions.", "findings": [ { "id": "authorised-readings", "name": "Authorised readings", "description": "Record recognised interpretive methods and the standing of those who use them.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which interpretive methods and meanings of key terms does this constituency recognise?", "kind": "definition", "id": "authorised-readings-q01" }, { "text": "Who, if anyone, may issue a binding interpretation, and what limits apply to that authority?", "kind": "action", "id": "authorised-readings-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "contested-readings", "name": "Contested readings", "description": "Disagreements over meaning and their consequences for doctrinal standing.", "findings": [ { "id": "dispute-boundaries", "name": "Dispute boundaries", "description": "Record rival readings with attributed judgements about their admissibility.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which readings are disputed, and which constituencies accept or reject each reading?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "dispute-boundaries-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence supports classifying a disagreement as permitted variation, unresolved controversy or rejection of the doctrine?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "dispute-boundaries-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "doctrinal-application", "name": "Doctrinal application", "description": "How authoritative beliefs inform judgements, teaching and conduct.", "rationale": "A doctrine may guide action, but an agent must distinguish stated requirements from implications introduced by interpretation.", "layers": [ { "id": "reasoning-from-doctrine", "name": "Reasoning from doctrine", "description": "The inferential route from doctrinal commitments to a particular judgement.", "findings": [ { "id": "application-warrants", "name": "Application warrants", "description": "Record the premises, contextual assumptions and interpretive steps supporting an application.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which doctrinal propositions support the proposed judgement, and what additional assumptions does it require?", "kind": "action", "id": "application-warrants-q01" }, { "text": "Under what conditions does the constituency consider this application valid or outside the doctrine's reach?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "application-warrants-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "adherence-in-practice", "name": "Adherence in practice", "description": "Doctrinal expectations and the evidence used to assess conformity.", "findings": [ { "id": "expected-expressions", "name": "Expected expressions", "description": "Record whether adherence requires assent, profession, teaching or conduct, without inferring inward belief directly from behaviour.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does this doctrine require particular professions, teachings or actions, or does it specify no practical obligations?", "kind": "definition", "id": "expected-expressions-q01" }, { "text": "What observable evidence does the group use to assess conformity, and what can that evidence leave undetermined?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "expected-expressions-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "continuity-and-change", "name": "Continuity and change", "description": "How doctrinal formulations and authority change while claims of identity or succession are maintained.", "rationale": "An agent must recognise when a formulation remains authoritative and whether a change is treated as clarification, revision or a different doctrine.", "layers": [ { "id": "historical-standing", "name": "Historical standing", "description": "The succession of formulations and their authority within particular constituencies.", "findings": [ { "id": "formulation-lineage", "name": "Formulation lineage", "description": "Record adoption, clarification, supersession and rejection with their attributed scope and dates.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which evidence establishes when each formulation acquired, changed or lost authoritative standing?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "formulation-lineage-q01" }, { "text": "Which earlier formulations remain authoritative for particular branches or contexts?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "formulation-lineage-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "permissible-development", "name": "Permissible development", "description": "The constituency's criteria for legitimate development and doctrinal discontinuity.", "findings": [ { "id": "revision-and-identity", "name": "Revision and identity", "description": "Record who may change a formulation and how continuity claims are evaluated.", "questions": [ { "text": "What process, if any, permits an authoritative clarification or revision of this doctrine?", "kind": "action", "id": "revision-and-identity-q01" }, { "text": "Which changes would relevant constituencies regard as development, abandonment or the formation of a separate doctrine?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "revision-and-identity-q02" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "What evidence is sufficient to establish authoritative acceptance in informal schools that have no adoption process or recognised spokesperson?", "How should identity be represented when rival branches each claim to preserve the same doctrine while rejecting the other's core interpretation?", "How can tacit doctrines be reconstructed from teaching or practice without attributing beliefs that participants do not recognise?", "Which distinctions between doctrine, dogma, ideology and theory are useful across domains, and which require constituency-specific definitions?", "How should the model represent a doctrine that remains officially authoritative while its practical acceptance is uncertain or declining?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 5, "layers": 10, "findings": 10, "questions": 20 } }, "draft": { "generator": "vr.draft.v3", "status": "draft-generated", "researched": false, "archetype": "discipline or field of knowledge", "method": "Written from the archetype playbook - what this kind of thing needs beyond identity and provenance - and from the structure that recurred across 6,333 models already researched by two engines. Applied to this entry by rule. No source was read for this thing and no claim here is researched.", "facetsInferred": false, "nextPass": "A researcher replaces this draft with a sourced specification. Treat every sentence below as a proposal to argue with.", "purpose": "Give an agent a durable, checkable way to recognise a doctrine, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school", "characteristics": { "substance": "information", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "read and interpreted" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Names folded into this entry, which a task may need to split apart again: theanthropism, philosophy, philosophical system, school of thought, ism, abolitionism, absolutism, amoralism, animalism, animism, antiestablishmentarianism, antiestablishmentism.", "127 finer distinctions are held as aliases rather than separate entries, because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it." ], "openQuestionsForResearch": [ "Which of the bundles below does a real task actually need, and which are ceremony?", "What does this thing have that the facets do not capture at all?", "Which neighbouring kind is most often confused with a doctrine, and on what evidence are they told apart?" ], "whatItIsMadeOf": "content that has to be carried by something else", "physicalCharacter": [ "Does nothing on its own; everything it does, something else did to it." ], "whatCanBeDoneWithIt": [ "read it and act on what it says" ], "howItIsRecognised": [], "relatedModels": [ { "relation": "covers", "note": "Finer kinds folded into this entry because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it. Each is a model waiting to be split out when one does.", "targets": [ "theanthropism", "philosophy", "philosophical system", "school of thought", "ism", "abolitionism", "absolutism", "amoralism", "animalism", "animism", "antiestablishmentarianism", "antiestablishmentism" ] } ], "standing": "127 finer distinctions are held inside this entry as names rather than as separate models.", "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "identity-and-classification", "name": "Identity, naming and classification", "description": "How an agent tells one doctrine from another, and a doctrine from things that resemble it.", "rationale": "Recognition comes before every other claim. Without stable identity nothing else in the model can be trusted to be about the same thing twice.", "layers": [ { "id": "naming-and-identifiers", "name": "Names and identifiers", "description": "The names this thing goes by and the identifiers that survive translation and time.", "findings": [ { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases", "name": "Preferred name, aliases and local names", "description": "Which name to use, which names mean the same thing, and which merely sound similar.", "questions": [ { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the name of a doctrine, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the name of a doctrine, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the name of a doctrine is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] }, { "id": "stable-identifiers", "name": "Stable identifiers and external keys", "description": "Identifiers that keep pointing at this kind of thing across systems and languages.", "questions": [ { "id": "stable-identifiers-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes an identifier for a doctrine, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "stable-identifiers-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about an identifier for a doctrine, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "stable-identifiers-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once an identifier for a doctrine is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "classification-and-granularity", "name": "Classification and granularity", "description": "Where a doctrine sits among kinds, and how finely a task needs to cut it.", "findings": [ { "id": "kind-and-parents", "name": "Kind, parents and neighbouring kinds", "description": "The classes this thing belongs to and the ones it is next to.", "questions": [ { "id": "kind-and-parents-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the kind of a doctrine, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "kind-and-parents-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the kind of a doctrine, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "kind-and-parents-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the kind of a doctrine is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] }, { "id": "distinguishing-features", "name": "Distinguishing features", "description": "What separates a doctrine from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a doctrine, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "distinguishing-features-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about what distinguishes a doctrine, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "distinguishing-features-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once what distinguishes a doctrine is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "state-and-lifecycle", "name": "State and lifecycle", "description": "The states a doctrine passes through and the events that move it between them.", "rationale": "Most decisions about a thing depend on what state it is in now, which is a claim with a time on it, not a property.", "layers": [ { "id": "lifecycle-stages", "name": "Lifecycle stages", "description": "From coming into existence to ceasing to be one of these.", "findings": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions", "name": "Stages and transitions", "description": "The stages worth naming and what moves a doctrine between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a doctrine, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the lifecycle of a doctrine, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the lifecycle of a doctrine is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "observations-and-status", "name": "Observations and current status", "description": "What is observed about a doctrine, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a doctrine is recorded so that it can be superseded rather than overwritten.", "questions": [ { "id": "observation-record-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes an observation of a doctrine, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "observation-record-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about an observation of a doctrine, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "observation-record-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once an observation of a doctrine is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "content-and-access", "name": "Content, encoding and access", "description": "What a doctrine says, how it is encoded and who may read it.", "rationale": "An informational thing carries content that can be copied, versioned and withheld, none of which its physical carrier explains.", "layers": [ { "id": "content-and-encoding", "name": "Content and encoding", "description": "The content itself, its format and its language.", "findings": [ { "id": "content-and-format", "name": "Content, format and language", "description": "What a doctrine contains and in what form it is held.", "questions": [ { "id": "content-and-format-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the content of a doctrine, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "content-and-format-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the content of a doctrine, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "content-and-format-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the content of a doctrine is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "access-and-rights", "name": "Access, rights and retention", "description": "Who may read, copy or change it, and for how long it is kept.", "findings": [ { "id": "access-rules", "name": "Access rules and retention", "description": "The permissions attached to a doctrine and the period it survives.", "questions": [ { "id": "access-rules-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes access to a doctrine, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "access-rules-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about access to a doctrine, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "access-rules-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once access to a doctrine is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "subject-and-method", "name": "Subject matter and method", "description": "What doctrine studies and how it establishes anything.", "rationale": "A field is identified by its questions and its methods, and those are what distinguish it from the fields next to it.", "layers": [ { "id": "subject", "name": "Subject matter", "description": "The questions it takes as its own.", "findings": [ { "id": "subject-record", "name": "Questions and objects of study", "description": "What it is about, stated so a neighbouring field can be told apart.", "questions": [ { "id": "subject-record-q01", "text": "What questions and objects does doctrine take as its own?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "subject-record-q02", "text": "Which questions does it share with a neighbouring field, and who claims them?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] }, { "id": "method", "name": "Method and evidence", "description": "How claims are established and what counts as evidence.", "findings": [ { "id": "method-record", "name": "Methods and standards of evidence", "description": "The methods used and what they are taken to establish.", "questions": [ { "id": "method-record-q01", "text": "By what methods does doctrine establish claims, and what counts as sufficient evidence?", "kind": "provenance" }, { "id": "method-record-q02", "text": "What kind of claim can this field not settle, and where should an agent look instead?", "kind": "action" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "institutions-and-classification", "name": "Institutions and classification", "description": "Where doctrine is practised and how catalogues place it.", "rationale": "The institutional footprint is the evidence that a field exists as a field rather than as a topic.", "layers": [ { "id": "institutions", "name": "Institutional markers", "description": "Societies, journals, degrees and departments.", "findings": [ { "id": "institution-record", "name": "Bodies and venues", "description": "Where the field organises itself.", "questions": [ { "id": "institution-record-q01", "text": "Which societies, journals or degrees mark doctrine as an established field?", "kind": "provenance" }, { "id": "institution-record-q02", "text": "What would show that it is emerging or dissolving rather than established?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] }, { "id": "classification", "name": "Classification schemes", "description": "Where library and research classifications put it.", "findings": [ { "id": "classification-record", "name": "Codes and their disagreements", "description": "The classification codes that place it, and where they differ.", "questions": [ { "id": "classification-record-q01", "text": "Which classification schemes place doctrine, under what codes?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "classification-record-q02", "text": "Where do those schemes disagree about its scope?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "provenance-and-evidence", "name": "Provenance, evidence and time", "description": "Where every claim about a doctrine came from and when it held.", "rationale": "A claim without a source and a time cannot be superseded, only overwritten, and an agent that overwrites loses the ability to explain itself.", "layers": [ { "id": "source-and-authority", "name": "Source and authority", "description": "Who said it, on what evidence, and how strongly.", "findings": [ { "id": "claim-provenance", "name": "Claim provenance and confidence", "description": "The authority behind each claim about a doctrine and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a doctrine, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "claim-provenance-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about a claim about a doctrine, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "claim-provenance-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once a claim about a doctrine is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "time-and-versions", "name": "Time, versions and supersession", "description": "When a claim was true, when it was learnt, and what replaced it.", "findings": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession", "name": "Validity period and supersession", "description": "How an old claim about a doctrine is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a doctrine, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the validity of a claim about a doctrine, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the validity of a claim about a doctrine is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 12, "findings": 14, "questions": 38 } } } }