{ "model": { "rank": 3791, "code": "thing-q171407", "model_id": "vr.tr.valence", "name": "valence", "purpose": "Enable an agent to identify, assess and use claims about how pleasant or unpleasant an experience or stimulus is while preserving uncertainty about whose evaluation is being represented.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Cross-cutting context", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "XCT", "domain": "XCT.QLT", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q171407/", "tier": 2, "score": 82, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [], "aliasCount": 0, "merged": 0, "knownIn": 82, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q171407", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q171407", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-07T15:09:48Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 24.7, "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: 01a07c6a-1954-7ea3-8e44-278af9b93f73\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: valence\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: XCT.QLT\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 801 things:\n# Batch 004: 1001 register", "usd": 0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 65.8, "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: 01a07c6a-1947-77e1-af57-a1c11736b1ff\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: valence\nRegistry id: vr.tr.valence\nPlane / domain: XCT / XCT.QLT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\n\nContext " } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q171407", "registryId": "vr.tr.valence", "name": "valence", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "XCT.QLT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q171407/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.valence", "name": "valence", "purpose": "Enable an agent to identify, assess and use claims about how pleasant or unpleasant an experience or stimulus is while preserving uncertainty about whose evaluation is being represented.", "definition": "In affective psychology, valence is the dimension of an experience or evaluation that characterises it as pleasant or unpleasant, or positive or negative, although theories differ on whether these descriptions capture a single underlying property.", "scope_statement": "This model provisionally treats valence as affective or evaluative quality within XCT / XCT.QLT: pleasantness-unpleasantness or positive-negative appraisal attributed to an experience, stimulus or anticipated outcome. The registry provides no definition, so this interpretation requires confirmation.", "in_scope": [ "Definitions of affective valence and their theoretical commitments", "Experienced pleasantness or unpleasantness and its attribution to a subject", "Evaluative positivity or negativity attributed to stimuli and anticipated outcomes", "Bipolar, separate-positive-and-negative, and categorical representations", "Methods, context and uncertainty of valence assessments" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Chemical valence and atomic bonding capacity", "Linguistic valency and argument structure", "Arousal, activation and physiological intensity as independent dimensions", "Complete emotion categories, mood models and psychiatric diagnoses", "Moral worth, economic value and preference rankings beyond their explicit relation to affective evaluation" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "A valence claim specifies pleasantness-unpleasantness or evaluative positivity-negativity; an activation score alone does not qualify.", "A claim about a stimulus's valence identifies whose response or which population norm it represents; the stimulus label alone does not establish an individual's experience.", "Valence does not identify a complete emotion: experiences can share a valence assignment while receiving different emotion labels.", "Negative evaluation does not by itself establish avoidance, and positive evaluation does not by itself establish approach; the behavioral relation must be recorded separately.", "A middle score is not automatically neutral: its interpretation must distinguish neutrality, mixed feelings, uncertainty and missing evidence." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Construct interpretation", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Experienced pleasantness; evaluative appraisal; stimulus norm; anticipated affect; explicitly defined alternative", "why_it_matters": "Prevents different meanings of positive and negative from being treated as one measurement." }, { "name": "Subject and target", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Experiencing or evaluating subject linked to an experience, stimulus or outcome", "why_it_matters": "Separates the bearer of an experience from the object being evaluated." }, { "name": "Valence assessment", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Instrument-specific score with anchors and range, or separately reported positive and negative scores; no assumed universal unit", "why_it_matters": "Makes direction and magnitude interpretable without assuming incompatible instruments are interchangeable." }, { "name": "Polarity configuration", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Positive; negative; neutral; mixed; indeterminate; unassessed, where supported by the chosen representation", "why_it_matters": "Preserves mixed affect and distinguishes absent evidence from an assessed neutral state." }, { "name": "Temporal and situational reference", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Current, recalled or anticipated assessment linked to a time interval and relevant context", "why_it_matters": "Prevents judgments from different moments or situations from being silently combined." }, { "name": "Evidence basis", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Self-report; observer judgment; population norm; behavioral inference; physiological inference; computational estimate", "why_it_matters": "Exposes how directly an assessment supports a claim about the subject's experience." } ], "affordances": [ "Record a valence claim with its subject, target, construct definition and assessment context.", "Select a representation that preserves the distinction between neutral, mixed and unknown valence.", "Compare assessments when their constructs, anchors and temporal references are compatible.", "Track changes in valence while retaining changes in context and assessment method.", "Request clarification or additional evidence when a stimulus label is being substituted for an individual's experience.", "Use a sufficiently supported valence assessment to inform an explicitly authorized adaptation, then reassess the subject's response." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "valence-meaning", "name": "Valence meaning", "description": "Establishes which sense of valence a claim uses and which theoretical distinctions it retains.", "rationale": "The absent registry definition makes sense selection necessary, and affective uses can themselves refer to different constructs.", "layers": [ { "id": "experienced-and-evaluated-valence", "name": "Experienced and evaluated valence", "description": "Separates felt pleasantness from judgments that something is positive or negative.", "findings": [ { "id": "declared-valence-construct", "name": "Declared valence construct", "description": "Record the definition adopted by a claim, its proponent or framework, and whether it concerns feeling or evaluation.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does valence mean felt pleasantness, evaluative appraisal, anticipated affect or another explicitly defined construct here?", "kind": "definition", "id": "declared-valence-construct-q01" }, { "text": "Which author, framework or instrument supplies this definition, and what competing definition would change the interpretation?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "declared-valence-construct-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "adjacent-affective-dimensions", "name": "Adjacent affective dimensions", "description": "Sets boundaries with activation, emotion identity and motivational direction.", "findings": [ { "id": "valence-specific-evidence", "name": "Valence-specific evidence", "description": "Require evidence that addresses positive-negative or pleasant-unpleasant quality rather than importing it from a neighboring dimension.", "questions": [ { "text": "What establishes valence independently of arousal, emotion labels or observed approach and avoidance?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "valence-specific-evidence-q01" }, { "text": "What would count as an instance of the chosen valence construct, and what superficially similar observation would not?", "kind": "definition", "id": "valence-specific-evidence-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "subject-target-and-context", "name": "Subject, target and context", "description": "Locates a valence attribution in an individual's experience, an evaluation or a population-level description.", "rationale": "An agent must know whose valence is being represented before interpreting a supposedly positive or negative thing.", "layers": [ { "id": "attribution-of-valence", "name": "Attribution of valence", "description": "Identifies the subject, evaluated target and level of aggregation.", "findings": [ { "id": "experiencer-versus-stimulus-label", "name": "Experiencer versus stimulus label", "description": "Keep individual experience, observer attribution and normative stimulus ratings distinct.", "questions": [ { "text": "Whose experience or evaluation does this valence claim describe, and what is its target?", "kind": "definition", "id": "experiencer-versus-stimulus-label-q01" }, { "text": "Is the attribution based on this subject's report, someone else's judgment or a specified population's ratings?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "experiencer-versus-stimulus-label-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "situated-valence", "name": "Situated valence", "description": "Captures circumstances and temporal perspective that qualify an assessment.", "findings": [ { "id": "assessment-reference", "name": "Assessment reference", "description": "Record whether the assessment concerns a current episode, remembered experience or expected outcome, together with relevant circumstances.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which episode and time interval are assessed, and is the judgment current, retrospective or anticipatory?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "assessment-reference-q01" }, { "text": "Which changes in goals, social setting or stimulus meaning would require a new assessment rather than reuse of this one?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "assessment-reference-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "polarity-and-measurement", "name": "Polarity and measurement", "description": "Defines how valence is represented and how observations support that representation.", "rationale": "A single positive-negative score can lose distinctions that matter for recognizing neutrality, ambivalence and uncertainty.", "layers": [ { "id": "polarity-representation", "name": "Polarity representation", "description": "Makes the chosen relationship between positive and negative explicit.", "findings": [ { "id": "neutral-mixed-and-unknown", "name": "Neutral, mixed and unknown", "description": "Specify whether the representation permits simultaneous positive and negative assessments and how it distinguishes these from a neutral or unavailable assessment.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the framework use one bipolar dimension, separate positive and negative dimensions or categories, and why?", "kind": "definition", "id": "neutral-mixed-and-unknown-q01" }, { "text": "How does the assessment distinguish neutrality from mixed feelings, rapid alternation, uncertainty and missing data?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "neutral-mixed-and-unknown-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "assessment-method", "name": "Assessment method", "description": "Records the instrument, anchors and evidence needed to interpret an assessment.", "findings": [ { "id": "interpretable-valence-score", "name": "Interpretable valence score", "description": "Tie each reported value to its elicitation method, scale meaning and uncertainty rather than treating it as a universal quantity.", "questions": [ { "text": "What prompt, instrument, response anchors and scoring procedure produced the assessment?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "interpretable-valence-score-q01" }, { "text": "If valence is inferred from behavior, physiology or computation, what validation supports that inference for this subject or population?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "interpretable-valence-score-q02" }, { "text": "What evidence permits comparison or conversion between this assessment and another instrument's result?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "interpretable-valence-score-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "change-and-use", "name": "Change and use", "description": "Governs interpretation of valence changes and their use in agent decisions.", "rationale": "An agent needs to distinguish an observed affective change from a measurement change and avoid equating pleasantness with the subject's overall goals.", "layers": [ { "id": "valence-over-time", "name": "Valence over time", "description": "Assesses trajectories while preserving context, sampling and aggregation choices.", "findings": [ { "id": "supported-valence-change", "name": "Supported valence change", "description": "Describe changes only at the temporal resolution and comparability supported by the observations.", "questions": [ { "text": "Were successive assessments made with compatible constructs, anchors and temporal windows?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "supported-valence-change-q01" }, { "text": "Does an apparent change reflect the experience, a changed target or context, or a changed assessment procedure?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "supported-valence-change-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "valence-informed-actions", "name": "Valence-informed actions", "description": "Connects assessments to bounded actions and subsequent feedback.", "findings": [ { "id": "action-without-preference-substitution", "name": "Action without preference substitution", "description": "Use valence as one input to an authorized decision while retaining the subject's stated goals and checking the outcome.", "questions": [ { "text": "What action does this assessment support, and what additional evidence is needed about the subject's preferences and goals?", "kind": "action", "id": "action-without-preference-substitution-q01" }, { "text": "How will the agent check whether an adaptation produced the intended experience and revise it if the subject reports otherwise?", "kind": "action", "id": "action-without-preference-substitution-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "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": [ "The affective sense is inferred from the quality-domain context; the registry records no explicit sense.", "Researchers should check whether the intended theory uses one bipolar dimension or separate positive and negative dimensions.", "This is recall-based information; no sources or instrument documentation were consulted." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of valence 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": [ "Positive valence", "Negative valence", "Neutral valence", "Mixed positive and negative affect, represented separately in some models" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of valence 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": [ "Describing emotions alongside dimensions such as arousal.", "Collecting pleasantness ratings for images, sounds and other experimental stimuli.", "Evaluating users' emotional responses to products and interfaces.", "Annotating positive and negative evaluative content in sentiment analysis." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of valence 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": "Self-reported affective valence using the Self-Assessment Manikin", "typical_range": "Commonly scored from 1 to 9; endpoint coding must be checked for the implementation", "unit": "Dimensionless rating" }, { "quantity": "Self-reported pleasure using a bipolar rating scale", "typical_range": "Unpleasant through neutral to pleasant; numerical endpoints depend on the instrument", "unit": "Dimensionless rating" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of valence 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": [ "Treating pleasantness, approval, desirability and approach motivation as interchangeable.", "Confusing valence with arousal: both pleasant and unpleasant experiences can have high or low arousal.", "Interpreting a midpoint rating as neutral when it may represent simultaneous positive and negative feelings.", "Assuming a stimulus has the same valence for every person and context.", "Treating facial expressions, physiological signals or text polarity as direct measurements of experienced valence." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of valence 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": [ "Language and cultural conventions can affect emotion labels, stimulus evaluations and rating-scale use." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of valence 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": "Arousal", "difference": "Arousal describes activation or intensity; valence describes pleasantness or positivity versus unpleasantness or negativity." }, { "name": "Emotion", "difference": "An emotion is a broader episode or state; valence is one property used to describe it." }, { "name": "Approach-avoidance motivation", "difference": "Motivation concerns tendencies to engage or withdraw; these do not map perfectly onto positive and negative experience." }, { "name": "Sentiment polarity", "difference": "Sentiment polarity classifies evaluative content in an expression; affective valence can describe an experience without an expressed opinion." }, { "name": "Chemical valence", "difference": "Chemical valence concerns atomic combining capacity, rather than affective quality." }, { "name": "Linguistic valency", "difference": "Linguistic valency concerns the arguments licensed by a predicate, rather than pleasantness or evaluation." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of valence this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Does vr.tr.valence specifically denote affective valence, broader evaluative polarity or another sense, and what registry provenance resolves this?", "Which reference frameworks should anchor the distinction between experienced pleasantness and positive-negative appraisal?", "Under which intended uses should valence be represented as bipolar, as separate positive and negative dimensions, or categorically?", "Which instruments and inference methods have adequate support for the populations, languages and contexts this registry must cover?", "What evidence and temporal resolution are needed to distinguish simultaneous mixed affect from alternating positive and negative experiences?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 5, "layers": 9, "findings": 15, "questions": 24 } }, "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 valence, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an agent to identify, assess and use claims about how pleasant or unpleasant an experience or stimulus is while preserving uncertainty about whose evaluation is being represented.", "characteristics": { "substance": "abstract", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "observed and measured" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Described in 82 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 valence, and on what evidence are they told apart?" ], "whatItIsMadeOf": "an abstraction with no physical instance", "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 82 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 valence from another, and a valence 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 valence, 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 valence, 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 valence 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 valence, 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 valence, 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 valence 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 valence 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 valence, 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 valence, 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 valence 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 valence from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a valence, 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 valence, 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 valence 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 valence 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 valence between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a valence, 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 valence, 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 valence 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 valence, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a valence 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 valence, 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 valence, 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 valence 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 valence 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 valence 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 valence 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 valence 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 valence?", "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 valence?", "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 valence 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 valence and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a valence, 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 valence, 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 valence 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 valence is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a valence, 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 valence, 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 valence is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "statistics": { "bundles": 5, "layers": 10, "findings": 12, "questions": 32 } } } }