peer
Enable an agent to recognise when a person is another person's peer within a group, assess the basis and limits of that standing, and choose contextually appropriate actions.
Bundle → Layer → Finding → Questions Filled
6 bundles · 11 layers · 16 findings · 26 questions
Relational anchor Locate the peer claim between people within a particular group.
People in comparison
Identify the people connected by the claim.
Explicit comparison person
Record the person described as a peer and the person against whom their standing is compared.
- Whose peer is this person claimed to be? definition
- Does the claim concern an identified pair or an unspecified set of people requiring clarification? boundary
Group context
Specify the shared context that gives standing its meaning.
Reference group boundary
Record the group, subgroup, or activity in which the comparison is being made and how each person belongs to it.
- Within which group or subgroup are these people being compared? definition
- What establishes each person's inclusion in that group for this comparison? provenance
Basis of equal standing Make the meaning and limits of equality explicit.
Equality criteria
Identify the dimension and rule used to establish equal standing.
Contextual equality test
Record the relevant standing dimension and the criterion by which both people qualify as equals.
- On which dimension must these people have equal standing to count as peers here? definition
- What rule or observable comparison establishes that they meet the same standing criterion? measurement
Limits of equivalence
Identify differences that remain despite the peer relationship.
Dimension-specific limits
Record whether differences in expertise, seniority, or authority are compatible with the stated basis of peer standing.
- Which differences between these people are irrelevant to the stated equality criterion? boundary
- Which difference would invalidate peer standing for this particular context? boundary
Evidence and recognition Separate supported standing from labels, assumptions, and contested accounts.
Claim support
Identify the evidence behind the proposed classification.
Traceable peer claim
Record the origin of the claim and evidence bearing on the group's equality criterion.
- Who asserted this peer relationship, and in what context? provenance
- What evidence supports equal standing beyond the use of the word peer? provenance
Recognition and dispute
Preserve differing accounts of whether the people are peers.
Divergent recognition
Record each person's and the group's position separately from the assessment of whether the equality criterion is met.
- Do both people and the relevant group recognise this peer standing? provenance
- If recognition differs, is the disagreement about membership, the equality criterion, its application, or acceptance of the relationship? boundary
Peer interaction conditions Determine how established peer standing bears on a proposed interaction.
Activity eligibility
Connect the relevant peer criterion to the intended activity.
Peer status and permission
Record what the activity requires in addition to peer standing and which rules establish eligibility.
- Does this activity require the same kind of equal standing established by the peer assessment? action
- What additional competence, consent, confidentiality, or authorisation requirements must be satisfied? action
Power in the interaction
Inspect authority differences relevant to the proposed use of the peer relationship.
Consequential authority differences
Record whether either person can assess, supervise, reward, sanction, or otherwise materially influence the other in this activity.
- Can either person make consequential decisions about the other during or after this interaction? boundary
- How do the activity's rules require such authority differences to be handled? action
Continuity of peer standing Track when the relationship applies and what requires reassessment.
Applicability period
Bound the peer assessment in time.
Dated standing
Record when equal standing was established and the period supported by available evidence.
- At what time or during which period is this peer relationship supported? provenance
- Does the available evidence establish current standing or only a historical relationship? boundary
Reassessment triggers
Identify changes that may alter the relevant equality.
Standing-changing events
Record changes in membership, rank, responsibilities, or group rules that require the peer claim to be evaluated again.
- Which changes would affect the equality criterion for this pair? boundary
- What evidence should an agent obtain before retaining or revising the peer classification after such a change? action
Evidence and external alignment What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.
Reported evidence
Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.
Check these first
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these check these first hold for the sense of peer this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Kinds and varieties
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of peer this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Real-world use
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of peer this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Failure modes and hazards
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of peer this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Regional variation
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of peer this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart
Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.
- Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of peer this model covers, and on what evidence? provenance
Classifiers Filled
- Family
- Thing Registry
- Category
- Society, people and institutions
- Entry kind
- noun.person
- Plane
- SOC
- Domain
- SOC.PER
- Facets: substance
- social
- Facets: origin
- conceptual
- Facets: agency
- inert
- Facets: mobility
- not-applicable
- Facets: scale
- not-applicable
- Facets: affordances
- observable
- Other names and narrower kinds
- equal, match, compeer, contemporary, coeval, gangsta, locum tenens, locum, stand-in, substitute, relief, reliever
What it is Filled
A peer is a person regarded as having equal standing with another within a specified group or in a relevant respect, such as status, age, experience or responsibility.
In scope
- The person, comparison person, and group that anchor a peer relationship
- The dimension and criteria on which standing is equal
- Evidence and recognition of peer standing, including disagreement
- Differences in authority or expertise that qualify the relationship
- Contextual opportunities and constraints associated with peer standing
- The period and circumstances in which peer standing applies
Out of scope
- A person's complete identity, biography, or psychological profile
- The group's complete governance and organisational structure
- Occupational qualifications, licensing, and employment arrangements
- Friendship, kinship, and other relationships independent of equal standing
- The procedures and outcomes of peer review or peer support programmes
- Nobility titles and computing peers as separate senses of the word
Why it exists Filled
Enable an agent to recognise when a person is another person's peer within a group, assess the basis and limits of that standing, and choose contextually appropriate actions.
Distinguishing features Filled
- A peer claim identifies another person and a group or group context; it is not an intrinsic attribute of an isolated person.
- Shared group membership alone does not establish peer standing; the relevant basis of equality must also be identified.
- Similarity in age, interests, or experience supports peer classification only when it establishes equal standing in the specified context.
- Friendship is neither a required criterion nor sufficient evidence of equal standing.
- Equality on one dimension does not establish equal expertise, authority, permissions, or standing on every other dimension.
What robots and AI may and may not do Filled
Must not
- Impersonate a peer to gain trust, especially with children or young people.
- Use peer comparison to shame or pressure a person.
- Disclose what a person shared in peer support without consent.
- Fake peer reviews, endorsements or testimonials.
Only with a human decision
- Reporting a peer's conduct to an authority or employer.
May
- Describe peer relationships and peer review or peer support in general terms.
- Match people with peers on criteria they have agreed to.
Moral aspects Filled
- Peer pressure shapes behaviour, for good and harm, especially among young people.
- Peer review and support depend on honesty and confidentiality.
Who is affected
- Young people
- People in peer support
- Reviewed authors and colleagues
Owners Filled
Steward
Nobody: a relationship between people, not a thing owned.
Links to other meta-models Filled
parent
- oewn-09786620-n - registry parent class
What else AI and robots need to interact with it Filled
Identity and identifiers required Filled
- Vercy registry: vr.tr.peer
- Open English WordNet: oewn-09649426-n
Direct properties not applicable Not applicable
- Comparison person: Identified person relative to whom peer standing is assessed
- Reference group: Identified group and relevant subgroup or activity context
- Standing dimension: Rank, membership status, participation status, experience level, or another explicitly defined dimension
- Equality criterion: Named group rule, explicit comparison criterion, or unresolved criterion
- Assessment state: Supported, unsupported, disputed, or undetermined for the stated context
- Recognition: Recognition or rejection by either person, the group, or another identified assessor
- Authority asymmetry: Specified supervisory, evaluative, resource-control, or other authority between the people
- Applicable period: Current, historical, prospective, or unknown, with dates or event boundaries when available
Plane SOC: no invented physical properties.
Recognition not applicable Not applicable
Not applicable
Peer standing is a contextual social relationship that cannot be established from a person's visual appearance.
Capabilities and actions required Filled
- Assess a proposed peer relationship against explicit group-specific criteria.
- Explain the dimension on which two people have equal standing and identify its limits.
- Identify candidate peers for an activity using that activity's stated eligibility requirements.
- Request clarification when the comparison person, group, or equality criterion is missing.
- Flag authority differences or disputed recognition before arranging a peer interaction.
- Reassess peer standing after changes in membership, rank, responsibilities, or context.
Hazards and failure modes required Filled
- Assuming equal authority or expertise from peer status can lead to misplaced trust and poor decisions.
- Peer pressure can undermine independent judgment and encourage harmful behavior.
- Exclusion or unequal treatment within a peer group can cause distress and restrict access to support or opportunities.
Standards and interfaces not applicable Not applicable
Not applicable
No universal standard or official classification defines peer standing across all social and professional contexts.
Context of use required Filled
- A peer is identified within a specified social, educational or professional group on the basis of relevant equal standing.
- Peer relationships are used in collaborative learning, mutual support, consultation and review.
- The basis of equality must be stated because similar age, experience or responsibility does not imply equal standing in every respect.
Sources Filled
- Open English WordNet 2024, synset oewn-09649426-n - sense and gloss of the concept
- Wiktionary: peer - word senses and usage
Open questions
- Which kinds of standing does this registry entry intend to cover, and when do age or experience similarities qualify?
- Must the reference group have explicit membership, or can an informal comparison group satisfy the registry definition?
- How should formal equality and unequal informal influence be weighed when they support different assessments?
- Is mutual recognition necessary in any intended use, or should recognition always remain separate from criterion-based standing?
- Under what shared criteria can pairwise peer assessments support classification of an entire peer group?
Machine files
Provenance
thing registry research (pass 2) · unreviewed
Built from: models/things/publications/thing-peer/spec.json