{ "model": { "rank": 3860, "code": "thing-q161165", "model_id": "vr.tr.nepotism", "name": "nepotism", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise, assess and respond to suspected kinship-based favouritism while distinguishing evidence of preferential treatment from family relationships alone.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Activities and processes", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "ACT", "domain": "ACT.ACT", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q161165/", "tier": 2, "score": 81, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [], "aliasCount": 0, "merged": 0, "knownIn": 81, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q161165", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q161165", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-09T18:56:08Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 23, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.4\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: 01a08786-0b84-7a53-b8d5-ea98aa47f383\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: nepotism\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: ACT.ACT\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 695 things:\n# Batch 004: 1001 registe", "usd": 0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 64.7, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.4\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: 01a08786-0b77-7751-a2d6-0841f70355ab\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: nepotism\nRegistry id: vr.tr.nepotism\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.ACT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\n\nContex" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q161165", "registryId": "vr.tr.nepotism", "name": "nepotism", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.ACT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q161165/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.nepotism", "name": "nepotism", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise, assess and respond to suspected kinship-based favouritism while distinguishing evidence of preferential treatment from family relationships alone.", "definition": "Nepotism is preferential treatment of relatives in appointments, promotions, allocations of resources or other opportunities because of kinship, especially where the decision-maker is expected to apply impartial criteria.", "scope_statement": "This model owns nepotism as a practice or pattern in which kinship influences the allocation of positions, opportunities, resources or protection, including competing definitions, evidence of influence and context-dependent judgments about permissible action.", "in_scope": [ "Kinship relationships connecting beneficiaries to decision-makers or influential intermediaries", "Preferential recruitment, appointment, promotion, contracting, allocation and protection involving relatives", "Competing definitions based on kinship preference, procedural unfairness or departure from merit", "Evidence connecting family relationships to particular decisions or recurring patterns", "Institutional rules, exceptions and responses relevant to suspected nepotism" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Friendship-based cronyism without a relevant kinship connection", "Political patronage based solely on loyalty or party membership", "Ordinary family support outside an institutional allocation or entrusted decision", "Inheritance and family ownership as such, without a distinct question about preferential institutional treatment", "Bribery, discrimination and corruption beyond their specific overlap with kinship-based preference" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "A relevant family relationship connects a beneficiary to someone who controls or influences the allocation; friendship or political loyalty alone indicates a neighbouring concept.", "The assessment identifies a particular advantage, opportunity or protection rather than treating the mere presence of relatives in an organisation as nepotism.", "Evidence addresses whether kinship influenced treatment; shared surnames, family ties and favourable outcomes alone do not establish that influence.", "The adopted definition makes explicit whether kinship preference is sufficient or whether unfairness, rule violation or displacement of a better-qualified candidate must also be shown.", "Assessment separates family ownership or succession rights from the exercise of institutional authority over hiring, promotion, procurement or discipline." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Definition applied", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Kinship preference; unfair kinship preference; merit-displacing preference; specified institutional definition", "why_it_matters": "Different definitions can classify the same decision differently." }, { "name": "Kinship connection", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Documented relationship path, including biological, marital, adoptive or other contextually recognised family ties", "why_it_matters": "Establishes the family connection and whether it falls within the definition or rule being applied." }, { "name": "Influence route", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Direct authority; recommendation; informal pressure; intermediary intervention; unknown", "why_it_matters": "A relative can influence a decision without making or signing it." }, { "name": "Advantage allocated", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Access; hiring; appointment; promotion; compensation; contract; resource allocation; disciplinary protection", "why_it_matters": "Identifies the concrete treatment requiring explanation." }, { "name": "Procedural departure", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Not assessed; none identified; documented departure; disputed; insufficient evidence", "why_it_matters": "Separates demonstrated deviations from assumptions about how a fair process should operate." }, { "name": "Comparator basis", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Published criteria; eligible non-relatives; comparable prior decisions; no adequate comparator", "why_it_matters": "Makes the basis for claims of preferential treatment inspectable." }, { "name": "Kinship influence assessment", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Unassessed; suspected; supported; contested; not supported on available evidence", "why_it_matters": "Prevents an allegation or relationship from being reported as an established causal finding." }, { "name": "Related-beneficiary selection share", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Percentage of selections benefiting relatives within a stated decision set and time period", "why_it_matters": "Supports pattern detection when paired with eligible-pool composition and process evidence; it is not sufficient proof alone." }, { "name": "Applicable rule relationship", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Named rule or norm linked to its jurisdiction, institution, effective period and covered relationship", "why_it_matters": "Permissibility depends on the actual rule and context rather than the label alone." } ], "affordances": [ "Assess a suspected episode under explicitly named definitions of nepotism", "Trace how a family connection could have influenced an allocation or protective decision", "Compare treatment of relatives and eligible non-relatives using relevant criteria", "Identify missing evidence and distinguish allegations from supported conclusions", "Evaluate disclosure, recusal, independent review or reconsideration against applicable authority", "Track whether corrective measures change kinship-related decision patterns" ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "meaning-and-boundaries", "name": "Meaning and boundaries", "description": "Establish the sense of nepotism being assessed and the limits of the concept.", "rationale": "A model must expose definitional disagreements rather than silently treating all family participation as improper.", "layers": [ { "id": "definitions-and-judgments", "name": "Definitions and judgments", "description": "Separate the descriptive role of kinship from judgments about fairness, merit or prohibition.", "findings": [ { "id": "classification-threshold", "name": "Classification threshold", "description": "Record which account of nepotism is being used, who uses it and what evidence satisfies its threshold.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does this account require only kinship-based preference, or also unfairness, rule violation or displacement of a more suitable candidate?", "kind": "definition", "id": "classification-threshold-q01" }, { "text": "Which reference, researcher, institution or affected group supplies this definition?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "classification-threshold-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "family-practice-boundaries", "name": "Family practice boundaries", "description": "Locate the decision relative to family support, ownership, succession, cronyism and patronage.", "findings": [ { "id": "institutional-allocation-boundary", "name": "Institutional allocation boundary", "description": "Identify the allocation or entrusted authority that makes a family preference a candidate instance of nepotism.", "questions": [ { "text": "What position, opportunity, resource or protection was allocated through organisational or public authority?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "institutional-allocation-boundary-q01" }, { "text": "Is the disputed treatment explained by kinship preference, an ownership entitlement, ordinary family support or a non-family loyalty relationship?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "institutional-allocation-boundary-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "kinship-and-influence", "name": "Kinship and influence", "description": "Connect the family relationship to the people and authority involved in the decision.", "rationale": "Nepotism concerns the influence of kinship, which must be established separately from the existence of a family tie.", "layers": [ { "id": "relevant-family-connection", "name": "Relevant family connection", "description": "Establish the relationship without relying on surnames, rumour or presumed household membership.", "findings": [ { "id": "kinship-path", "name": "Kinship path", "description": "Record the evidenced relationship path and its relevance under the chosen definition.", "questions": [ { "text": "What reliable evidence establishes the relationship between the beneficiary and the person alleged to favour them?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "kinship-path-q01" }, { "text": "Does the applicable definition include this degree and type of kinship, including ties by marriage or adoption?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "kinship-path-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "authority-and-intervention", "name": "Authority and intervention", "description": "Trace direct decisions and indirect interventions by relatives.", "findings": [ { "id": "influence-chain", "name": "Influence chain", "description": "Identify how the relative could affect the outcome and what evidence indicates actual intervention.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who controlled eligibility, shortlisting, evaluation, approval or enforcement, and how was the relative connected to those stages?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "influence-chain-q01" }, { "text": "What records or testimony distinguish actual intervention from a merely available opportunity to influence?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "influence-chain-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "preference-and-comparison", "name": "Preference and comparison", "description": "Specify the advantage and assess whether family connection affected access, evaluation or treatment.", "rationale": "An agent needs an inspectable account of preferential treatment, including cases where the beneficiary is qualified.", "layers": [ { "id": "forms-of-advantage", "name": "Forms of advantage", "description": "Capture advantages before, during and after a formal selection.", "findings": [ { "id": "preferential-treatment", "name": "Preferential treatment", "description": "Record the alleged benefit, such as privileged access, tailored criteria, accelerated advancement or protection from sanctions.", "questions": [ { "text": "What specific benefit or exemption did the relative receive, and at which decision stage?", "kind": "definition", "id": "preferential-treatment-q01" }, { "text": "Was equivalent access or treatment available to similarly situated non-relatives?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "preferential-treatment-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "merit-and-process-comparators", "name": "Merit and process comparators", "description": "Evaluate relevant alternatives without equating qualification with absence of favouritism.", "findings": [ { "id": "comparison-quality", "name": "Comparison quality", "description": "Record the criteria, candidate pool and process evidence supporting or weakening the preference claim.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which criteria existed before the decision, and how did the beneficiary and eligible alternatives perform against them?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "comparison-quality-q01" }, { "text": "Could a qualified relative still have received preferential access, evaluation or protection under the definition being applied?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "comparison-quality-q02" }, { "text": "What evidence supports the proposed outcome if the family relationship had been absent?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "comparison-quality-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-patterns", "name": "Evidence and patterns", "description": "Assess individual allegations and recurring family advantage without overstating causal certainty.", "rationale": "Family concentration can prompt investigation, but classification requires attention to evidence quality and alternative explanations.", "layers": [ { "id": "episode-evidence", "name": "Episode evidence", "description": "Keep allegations, observations and inferences distinct.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidential-status", "name": "Evidential status", "description": "Link each claim about kinship influence to its supporting and conflicting evidence.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which claims are supported by decision records, communications or independently corroborated testimony, and which remain allegations?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "evidential-status-q01" }, { "text": "What contrary evidence or plausible non-kinship explanation has been considered?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "evidential-status-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "repeated-family-advantage", "name": "Repeated family advantage", "description": "Examine whether related beneficiaries repeatedly receive advantages across comparable decisions.", "findings": [ { "id": "pattern-operationalisation", "name": "Pattern operationalisation", "description": "Define the decision population and comparison needed to interpret family concentration.", "questions": [ { "text": "Across what period and decision population are relatives' selection, promotion or exemption rates being measured?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "pattern-operationalisation-q01" }, { "text": "How do eligible-pool composition, family ownership and recruitment channels affect interpretation of the observed concentration?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "pattern-operationalisation-q02" }, { "text": "What additional process evidence connects the repeated outcomes to kinship preference?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "pattern-operationalisation-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "rules-and-responses", "name": "Rules and responses", "description": "Determine applicable constraints and justified responses to established or suspected kinship preference.", "rationale": "Recognising nepotism does not by itself establish a legal violation or authorise a particular remedy.", "layers": [ { "id": "applicable-constraints", "name": "Applicable constraints", "description": "Connect the assessed conduct to actual institutional rules and relevant exceptions.", "findings": [ { "id": "rule-fit", "name": "Rule fit", "description": "Record whether a rule addresses family appointments, supervisory relationships, disclosure, recusal or preferential treatment.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which current rule governs this institution, relationship and decision, and what is its authoritative source?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "rule-fit-q01" }, { "text": "Does the rule prohibit the relationship itself, prohibit preferential treatment, or require a managed decision process?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "rule-fit-q02" }, { "text": "Are any exceptions applicable, and who has authority to determine that?", "kind": "action", "id": "rule-fit-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "corrective-action-and-review", "name": "Corrective action and review", "description": "Match intervention to evidence, decision stage and institutional authority.", "findings": [ { "id": "proportionate-response", "name": "Proportionate response", "description": "Record available actions and how their effectiveness and procedural fairness will be assessed.", "questions": [ { "text": "Given the evidence and applicable rule, who may require disclosure, recusal, independent reassessment or reconsideration of the allocation?", "kind": "action", "id": "proportionate-response-q01" }, { "text": "What review or response opportunity is available to the beneficiary, decision-maker and adversely affected candidates?", "kind": "action", "id": "proportionate-response-q02" }, { "text": "What subsequent evidence would show that the response reduced kinship-based preference in comparable decisions?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "proportionate-response-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-external-alignment", "name": "Evidence and external alignment", "description": "What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.", "rationale": "A model that cannot be lined up against existing standards, identifiers and practice cannot be adopted by anyone who already uses them.", "layers": [ { "id": "reported-evidence", "name": "Reported evidence", "description": "Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes", "name": "Check these first", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Definitions differ over whether nepotism necessarily violates merit or impartiality, or includes any kin-based preference.", "Studies must specify which relatives count, including whether relationships by marriage are included.", "The listed kinds are practical distinctions, not a standardized taxonomy; jurisdiction-specific legal rules require verification." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of nepotism this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-kinds", "name": "Kinds and varieties", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Nepotism in hiring", "Nepotism in promotion", "Political nepotism", "Nepotism in admissions", "Nepotism in contracting" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of nepotism this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-real-world-use", "name": "Real-world use", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Assessing whether recruitment and promotion decisions reflect family relationships rather than stated selection criteria.", "Designing disclosure, recusal and independent review procedures for decisions involving relatives.", "Studying family influence over political appointments and access to public resources.", "Examining succession and employment practices in family businesses." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of nepotism this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-measurements", "name": "Typical measurements", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ { "quantity": "Share of appointments involving relatives of decision-makers", "typical_range": "0-100; kinship alone does not establish preferential treatment", "unit": "percent" }, { "quantity": "Difference in selection rates between related and unrelated candidates", "typical_range": "No universal typical range; interpretation requires comparable qualifications and selection conditions", "unit": "percentage points" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of nepotism this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards", "name": "Failure modes and hazards", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Excluding better-qualified candidates and restricting equal access to opportunities.", "Creating conflicts of interest in selection, supervision and disciplinary decisions.", "Weakening institutional trust and employees' perceptions of procedural fairness.", "Concentrating authority and resources within families.", "Mistaking the presence of relatives for evidence of favoritism without examining the decision process." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of nepotism this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-regional-variation", "name": "Regional variation", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Expectations about obligations to relatives and the legitimacy of family-based recruitment vary across societies and institutional settings.", "Rules governing relatives' employment and appointments vary by jurisdiction and between public institutions and private family businesses." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of nepotism this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-neighbours", "name": "Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ { "name": "cronyism", "difference": "Cronyism favors friends or associates; nepotism specifically favors relatives." }, { "name": "favoritism", "difference": "Favoritism is the broader category; nepotism identifies kinship as the basis of preference." }, { "name": "patronage", "difference": "Patronage allocates positions or benefits through personal or political support relationships, which need not involve kinship." }, { "name": "conflict of interest", "difference": "A family relationship can create a conflict of interest before any preferential decision occurs; nepotism involves preferential treatment." }, { "name": "family succession", "difference": "Transfer of family ownership or leadership is not automatically nepotism; classification depends on preferential treatment and the institution's selection obligations." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of nepotism this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which reference works and research traditions define nepotism as any kinship preference, and which require unfairness or departure from merit?", "How should the model represent culturally recognised family ties when they differ from the kinship categories used by an institution's rules?", "Which operationalisations can distinguish kinship preference from eligible-pool composition, shared training and family-business succession?", "What evidence thresholds should distinguish suspected, supported and formally determined nepotism across research and institutional use?", "Under what conditions do disclosure, recusal and independent selection reduce informal family influence, and how should their effectiveness be measured?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 17, "questions": 31 } }, "draft": { "generator": "vr.draft.v3", "status": "draft-generated", "researched": false, "archetype": "abstract concept", "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. This entry carries no facets of its own, so they were inferred from its domain - a guess about a whole domain applied to one thing.", "facetsInferred": true, "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 nepotism, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an agent to recognise, assess and respond to suspected kinship-based favouritism while distinguishing evidence of preferential treatment from family relationships alone.", "characteristics": { "substance": "activity", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "observed and measured" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Described in 81 Wikipedia languages, which is a measure of how widely the thing is known, not of how important it is." ], "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 nepotism, and on what evidence are they told apart?" ], "whatItIsMadeOf": "something that happens over time", "physicalCharacter": [ "Does nothing on its own; everything it does, something else did to it.", "These come from the domain this entry sits in rather than from the entry itself, so treat them as a first guess about the whole domain applied to one thing." ], "whatCanBeDoneWithIt": [ "observe it, measure it, record its state" ], "howItIsRecognised": [ "Nothing to see. What is recognised is an instance of it, and which instances count is exactly what is argued about." ], "relatedModels": [], "standing": "Described in 81 Wikipedia languages, which measures how widely it is written about rather than how important or how common it is.", "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "identity-and-classification", "name": "Identity, naming and classification", "description": "How an agent tells one nepotism from another, and a nepotism 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 nepotism, 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 nepotism, 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 nepotism 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 nepotism, 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 nepotism, 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 nepotism 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 nepotism 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 nepotism, 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 nepotism, 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 nepotism 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 nepotism from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a nepotism, 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 nepotism, 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 nepotism 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 nepotism 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 nepotism between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a nepotism, 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 nepotism, 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 nepotism 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 nepotism, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a nepotism 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 nepotism, 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 nepotism, 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 nepotism is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "process-and-outcome", "name": "Process, inputs and outcome", "description": "How a nepotism proceeds, what it needs and what it leaves behind.", "rationale": "An activity is known by its steps and its results, and both have to be recordable while it is still running.", "layers": [ { "id": "steps-and-sequence", "name": "Steps and sequence", "description": "The steps of a nepotism, their order and what may run in parallel.", "findings": [ { "id": "steps-and-preconditions", "name": "Steps, preconditions and completion", "description": "What has to be true before each step of a nepotism and what marks it done.", "questions": [ { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a step of a nepotism, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about a step of a nepotism, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once a step of a nepotism is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "inputs-and-results", "name": "Inputs, resources and results", "description": "What a nepotism consumes and what it produces.", "findings": [ { "id": "inputs-and-outputs", "name": "Inputs, outputs and side effects", "description": "The resources a nepotism takes and the results it leaves, wanted or not.", "questions": [ { "id": "inputs-and-outputs-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the inputs and results of a nepotism, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "inputs-and-outputs-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the inputs and results of a nepotism, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "inputs-and-outputs-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the inputs and results of a nepotism is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "definitions-in-contest", "name": "Definitions and who holds them", "description": "What nepotism is taken to mean, and by whom.", "rationale": "When a field disagrees about a concept, the disagreement is the content. A model that picks one definition silently destroys the information.", "layers": [ { "id": "competing-definitions", "name": "Competing definitions", "description": "The main readings and the traditions behind them.", "findings": [ { "id": "definition-map", "name": "Definitions and their holders", "description": "Each definition with the school or body that holds it.", "questions": [ { "id": "definition-map-q01", "text": "Which definitions of nepotism are in use, and which tradition or body holds each?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "definition-map-q02", "text": "What turns on the difference between them in practice?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] }, { "id": "operationalisation", "name": "Operationalisation", "description": "How it is measured or applied when it has to be.", "findings": [ { "id": "operational-record", "name": "Measures and proxies", "description": "Instruments and indicators used to stand in for it.", "questions": [ { "id": "operational-record-q01", "text": "How is nepotism operationalised or measured in practice, and by what instrument?", "kind": "measurement" }, { "id": "operational-record-q02", "text": "What does that operationalisation leave out, and when does that matter?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "instances-and-use", "name": "Instances, use and consequence", "description": "What counts as an instance of nepotism and what follows from calling something that.", "rationale": "Applying a concept is an act with consequences, so a model must say what the label licenses and what it does not.", "layers": [ { "id": "instances", "name": "What counts as an instance", "description": "Clear cases, borderline cases and non-cases.", "findings": [ { "id": "instance-tests", "name": "Tests for an instance", "description": "What would settle whether something falls under it.", "questions": [ { "id": "instance-tests-q01", "text": "What would settle whether something is an instance of nepotism?", "kind": "boundary" }, { "id": "instance-tests-q02", "text": "Which borderline cases are argued about, and on what grounds?", "kind": "definition" } ] } ] }, { "id": "consequence", "name": "Consequence of application", "description": "Rights, duties or decisions that follow from the label.", "findings": [ { "id": "consequence-record", "name": "What the label licenses", "description": "What an agent may do once something is classified this way.", "questions": [ { "id": "consequence-record-q01", "text": "What follows practically once something is treated as nepotism?", "kind": "action" }, { "id": "consequence-record-q02", "text": "What must an agent not infer from the label alone?", "kind": "action" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "provenance-and-evidence", "name": "Provenance, evidence and time", "description": "Where every claim about a nepotism 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 nepotism and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a nepotism, 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 nepotism, 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 nepotism 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 nepotism is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a nepotism, 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 nepotism, 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 nepotism 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 } } } }