{ "model": { "rank": 5061, "code": "thing-q484511", "model_id": "vr.tr.inductive-reasoning", "name": "inductive reasoning", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise an inductive inference, assess how its evidence supports a conclusion beyond that evidence, and decide whether to accept, qualify, test or revise the conclusion.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Activities and processes", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "ACT", "domain": "ACT.ACT", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q484511/", "tier": 2, "score": 70, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [ "proof by example" ], "aliasCount": 1, "merged": 1, "knownIn": 70, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q484511", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q484511", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-09T21:35:08Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 17.9, "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: 01a08817-90db-71d2-bd86-c99785d30abb\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: inductive reasoning\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: ACT.ACT\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 005: ", "usd": 0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 68.3, "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: 01a08817-90e6-7ae0-b031-8124148e2c37\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: inductive reasoning\nRegistry id: vr.tr.inductive-reasoning\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.ACT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this " } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q484511", "registryId": "vr.tr.inductive-reasoning", "name": "inductive reasoning", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.ACT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q484511/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.inductive-reasoning", "name": "inductive reasoning", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise an inductive inference, assess how its evidence supports a conclusion beyond that evidence, and decide whether to accept, qualify, test or revise the conclusion.", "definition": "Inductive reasoning is inference in which premises support a conclusion without deductively entailing it, commonly extending observed patterns to unobserved cases or general claims, although accounts differ over whether explanatory and analogical inferences belong within induction.", "scope_statement": "This model owns inductive reasoning as an ACT-plane activity that extends evidential support to a conclusion not deductively guaranteed by its premises, including generalisation, prediction and statistical inference; it records the interpretation of induction being used where boundaries with analogy, abduction or probabilistic reasoning differ.", "in_scope": [ "The observed evidence, target population or future cases, and conclusion of an inductive inference", "Forms of induction and competing accounts of what makes an inductive inference warranted", "Sampling, measurement and dependence conditions affecting evidential support", "Assumptions that permit generalisation across cases, contexts or time", "Defeaters, uncertainty, further testing and revision of inductive conclusions" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Deductive proof and mathematical induction as proof techniques", "Data collection procedures and measurement instruments except where their properties affect the inference", "Complete causal identification and experimental design models", "Abductive selection of explanations except where its relationship to induction must be marked", "Machine learning architectures and training infrastructure", "Decision utility, policy authority and action execution beyond their requirements for evidential confidence" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Under the ampliative interpretation, the premises could be true while the conclusion is false; a conclusion logically entailed by the premises belongs to deduction.", "The inference extends support from observed cases to unobserved cases, a population property, a future outcome or a broader claim; a summary restricted to recorded observations is not sufficient.", "The inference depends on a stated or recoverable bridge between evidence and target, such as sampling representativeness or stability across time.", "Mathematical induction establishes a conclusion through a base case and an inductive step that jointly entail it; sharing the word 'induction' does not make that proof an instance here.", "When the warrant is principally that a hypothesis best explains observations, mark an abductive component; when it principally transfers properties through similarity, mark an analogical component and state the adopted boundary." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Interpretation of induction", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Enumerative; statistical; predictive; broad ampliative; other explicitly defined interpretation", "why_it_matters": "Determines which inference forms qualify and which standards of support apply." }, { "name": "Evidence-to-conclusion relationship", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Identified observations or premises linked to an explicit target conclusion", "why_it_matters": "Makes the inferential extension inspectable rather than leaving it hidden in prose." }, { "name": "Conclusion type", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Universal claim; population proportion; parameter estimate; individual prediction; hypothesis support", "why_it_matters": "Determines what evidence, counterexamples and uncertainty statements can establish." }, { "name": "Independent observational support", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Count of observational units; effective sample size when justified; unknown when dependence is unresolved", "why_it_matters": "Repeated or correlated observations cannot automatically be treated as independent confirmations." }, { "name": "Evidence selection mechanism", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Probability sample; convenience sample; selected cases; complete bounded enumeration; other documented mechanism; unknown", "why_it_matters": "Selection affects which population or circumstances the evidence can support conclusions about." }, { "name": "Generalisation bridge", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Evidence context linked to target context through explicit assumptions about exchangeability, similarity or stability", "why_it_matters": "Identifies the assumptions carrying the inference beyond the observations." }, { "name": "Strength of support", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Framework-specific probability, likelihood ratio, interval or qualitative assessment with its interpretation; no mandatory common scale", "why_it_matters": "Prevents unlike measures of uncertainty or support from being treated as interchangeable." }, { "name": "Defeater status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Not assessed; no defeater found in stated checks; suspected defeater; established defeater; revised after defeater", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes a currently supported inference from one whose evidence or transfer assumptions have been undermined." }, { "name": "Validation relationship", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Conclusion linked to prospective observations, held-out cases or replication evidence, with reuse and independence recorded", "why_it_matters": "Separates fit to evidence used to construct a claim from performance on additional cases." } ], "affordances": [ "Reconstruct the premises, target conclusion and assumptions of an implicit inductive argument.", "Classify the inference under a declared interpretation and identify mixed deductive, abductive or analogical steps.", "Assess whether sampling, measurement and dependence permit the claimed generalisation.", "Compare alternative conclusions and express support using an appropriate, explicitly interpreted framework.", "Specify observations that would discriminate between alternatives or reveal failure of transfer assumptions.", "Narrow, suspend or revise a conclusion when counterevidence or a defeater appears." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "inferential-extension", "name": "Inferential extension", "description": "Identify what the inference adds beyond its evidence and which interpretation of induction makes that extension an instance.", "rationale": "An agent must distinguish an inductive claim from a descriptive summary, deductive consequence or differently warranted inference.", "layers": [ { "id": "premises-and-target", "name": "Premises and target", "description": "Separate the observed premises from the unobserved cases or broader proposition addressed.", "findings": [ { "id": "explicit-ampliative-step", "name": "Explicit ampliative step", "description": "Record the evidence and conclusion separately, identifying precisely where the conclusion extends beyond what the premises entail.", "questions": [ { "text": "What observations are asserted, and what additional proposition is inferred from them?", "kind": "definition", "id": "explicit-ampliative-step-q01" }, { "text": "Could those premises all be true while this conclusion is false, and what would such a case look like?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "explicit-ampliative-step-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "interpretations-and-neighbours", "name": "Interpretations and neighbours", "description": "Locate the inference within a declared account of induction and mark adjacent reasoning forms.", "findings": [ { "id": "declared-induction-account", "name": "Declared induction account", "description": "Record whether induction is being used narrowly for generalisation or more broadly for ampliative inference, including who adopts that usage and how mixed arguments are handled.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which author, field or working convention supplies the definition of induction used here?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "declared-induction-account-q01" }, { "text": "Does this account include statistical syllogisms, analogy and abduction, or must those steps be identified separately?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "declared-induction-account-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "observational-support", "name": "Observational support", "description": "Expose how observations were obtained, selected and counted before they are treated as inductive support.", "rationale": "The number of confirming cases is insufficient without knowing their selection, measurement quality and dependence.", "layers": [ { "id": "selection-and-coverage", "name": "Selection and coverage", "description": "Relate the available cases to the population or circumstances named in the conclusion.", "findings": [ { "id": "sample-target-fit", "name": "Sample-target fit", "description": "Record inclusion mechanisms, omitted cases and coverage limits that constrain generalisation.", "questions": [ { "text": "How did a case become observable and included, and could inclusion depend on the property being inferred?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "sample-target-fit-q01" }, { "text": "Which target groups, conditions or time periods are absent or poorly represented in the evidence?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "sample-target-fit-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "measurement-and-dependence", "name": "Measurement and dependence", "description": "Assess whether recorded cases reliably measure the relevant properties and provide distinct information.", "findings": [ { "id": "informative-observation-units", "name": "Informative observation units", "description": "Distinguish raw record count from independent support, accounting for duplication, shared origins and measurement error.", "questions": [ { "text": "What counts as one observational unit, and which records share a subject, source, cluster or repeated measurement?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "informative-observation-units-q01" }, { "text": "Could misclassification, instrument error or duplicated reporting account for the apparent regularity?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "informative-observation-units-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "generalisation-warrant", "name": "Generalisation warrant", "description": "Make explicit the assumptions supporting transfer from observed evidence to a broader or later target.", "rationale": "Inductive support depends on a bridge whose applicability can fail even when the observations are accurate.", "layers": [ { "id": "transfer-assumptions", "name": "Transfer assumptions", "description": "Identify the similarities or stability conditions required to extend the observed pattern.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-target-bridge", "name": "Evidence-target bridge", "description": "Record the assumed relationship between observed and target cases, together with evidence for its applicability.", "questions": [ { "text": "What must remain sufficiently similar or stable between observed and target cases for this inference to work?", "kind": "definition", "id": "evidence-target-bridge-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence supports that bridge, and does its justification merely repeat the regularity being generalised?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "evidence-target-bridge-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "claim-reach-and-projectibility", "name": "Claim reach and projectibility", "description": "Assess which predicates, populations and conditions the observed regularity can reasonably be extended across.", "findings": [ { "id": "bounded-projectible-claim", "name": "Bounded projectible claim", "description": "Record why the selected regularity is a candidate for projection and delimit its quantifiers and applicability conditions.", "questions": [ { "text": "Why project this property or grouping rather than a competing pattern that fits the same observed cases?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "bounded-projectible-claim-q01" }, { "text": "Should the conclusion concern all cases, a proportion of cases or only cases under specified conditions?", "kind": "action", "id": "bounded-projectible-claim-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "support-and-alternatives", "name": "Support and alternatives", "description": "Represent uncertainty and evaluate competing conclusions under a stated inferential framework.", "rationale": "An agent must avoid equating confirmation with proof or treating every numerical uncertainty measure as a probability that a claim is true.", "layers": [ { "id": "standards-of-support", "name": "Standards of support", "description": "Identify how the adopted approach operationalises stronger or weaker inductive support.", "findings": [ { "id": "interpreted-support-assessment", "name": "Interpreted support assessment", "description": "Record the framework, assumptions and meaning of the reported support, including distinctions among posterior probability, likelihood comparison and repeated-sampling guarantees.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which account of inductive support is being used, and what does its reported quantity or qualitative grade mean?", "kind": "definition", "id": "interpreted-support-assessment-q01" }, { "text": "How sensitive is the assessment to prior assumptions, model choice or the sampling procedure?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "interpreted-support-assessment-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "rival-patterns-and-hypotheses", "name": "Rival patterns and hypotheses", "description": "Examine whether the evidence distinguishes the proposed conclusion from plausible alternatives.", "findings": [ { "id": "discriminating-evidence", "name": "Discriminating evidence", "description": "Record rival conclusions that accommodate the observations and identify evidence that could separate them.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which alternative generalisations or predictions fit the current observations, and where do their expectations diverge?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "discriminating-evidence-q01" }, { "text": "What additional observation would discriminate between these alternatives rather than merely repeat a shared prediction?", "kind": "action", "id": "discriminating-evidence-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "defeasibility-and-use", "name": "Defeasibility and use", "description": "Track how counterevidence changes the inference and what provisional reliance its support permits.", "rationale": "Inductive conclusions remain revisable, and an agent needs explicit conditions for checking, qualifying or withdrawing them.", "layers": [ { "id": "counterexamples-and-defeaters", "name": "Counterexamples and defeaters", "description": "Distinguish evidence against a conclusion from evidence undermining the route by which it was inferred.", "findings": [ { "id": "claim-sensitive-revision", "name": "Claim-sensitive revision", "description": "Assess adverse evidence relative to the claim's quantifier and assumptions: an established counterexample contradicts a strict universal claim, while an exception need not contradict a probabilistic claim.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the new evidence contradict the conclusion, reveal an expected exception or undermine the sample-to-target bridge?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "claim-sensitive-revision-q01" }, { "text": "Should the agent reject the claim, narrow its scope, adjust its uncertainty or investigate the observation first?", "kind": "action", "id": "claim-sensitive-revision-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "prospective-checking-and-reliance", "name": "Prospective checking and reliance", "description": "Connect provisional acceptance to further observations and requirements supplied by the intended use.", "findings": [ { "id": "revisable-reliance", "name": "Revisable reliance", "description": "Record validation on additional cases, the degree of reliance justified for the stated use and conditions that trigger reassessment.", "questions": [ { "text": "How has the inference performed on cases not used to formulate or select it, and was that separation preserved?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "revisable-reliance-q01" }, { "text": "Given the intended use's evidential requirements, what reliance is justified and what observation or context change should trigger reassessment?", "kind": "action", "id": "revisable-reliance-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": [ "This describes the reasoning activity; the supplied domain code alone does not establish a more specific registry sense.", "Hume's justification problem, Bayesian confirmation theory and Popper's rejection of inductive justification should be distinguished rather than presented as one settled account.", "The listed measurements assess particular implementations or outputs; there is no universal numerical measure of inductive strength, and no sources were consulted for this recall-based description." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of inductive reasoning 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": [ "Enumerative induction", "Statistical generalisation from samples to populations", "Prediction of unobserved cases", "Inference by analogy, under broader classifications", "Causal induction" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of inductive reasoning 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": [ "Developing and assessing scientific generalisations from observations and experiments.", "Estimating population characteristics from sampled data.", "Forecasting future outcomes from observed regularities.", "Learning predictive patterns from training data in machine learning.", "Forming everyday expectations from repeated experience." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of inductive reasoning 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": "Predictive accuracy on held-out observations", "typical_range": "0-1; meaningful performance depends on the task and comparison baseline", "unit": "proportion of predictions correct" }, { "quantity": "Posterior probability assigned to a hypothesis in a Bayesian operationalisation", "typical_range": "0-1, conditional on the prior, likelihood and evidence", "unit": "dimensionless probability" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of inductive reasoning 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": [ "Hasty generalisation from too few or unrepresentative observations.", "Selection bias and survivorship bias that distort the evidence available.", "Treating correlation as sufficient evidence of causation.", "Overfitting observed data and failing to generalise to new cases.", "Assuming that regularities persist despite changes in conditions or data-generating processes." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of inductive reasoning 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": "Deductive reasoning", "difference": "A valid deduction cannot have true premises and a false conclusion; even a strong inductive inference can." }, { "name": "Abductive reasoning", "difference": "Abduction selects or proposes an explanation for observations; narrower accounts distinguish this from inductive generalisation and prediction." }, { "name": "Analogical reasoning", "difference": "Analogy transfers a conclusion between cases because of relevant similarities; its inclusion within induction depends on the classification used." }, { "name": "Mathematical induction", "difference": "Mathematical induction is a deductive proof method using a base case and an inductive step, despite its name." }, { "name": "Statistical inference", "difference": "Statistical inference uses formal models and data to estimate, test or predict; it operationalises some inductive reasoning but does not exhaust it." }, { "name": "Problem of induction", "difference": "This is the philosophical problem of justifying inductive inference, rather than the inferential activity itself." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of inductive reasoning this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which reference works and disciplinary conventions should anchor this registry entry's treatment of induction, particularly its boundaries with abduction and analogy?", "Should the model treat Bayesian confirmation, frequentist inductive procedures and qualitative generalisation as separate profiles, and which assessments can meaningfully be compared across them?", "How should agents assess projectibility when several predicates fit the observed cases but background knowledge offers no agreed preference?", "What operational checks are sufficient to support transfer across time or populations in different domains, without presenting those checks as a universal justification of induction?", "How should unresolved disagreement about the justification of induction affect recorded confidence and permissible reliance in individual reasoning episodes?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 16, "questions": 26 } }, "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 inductive reasoning, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an agent to recognise an inductive inference, assess how its evidence supports a conclusion beyond that evidence, and decide whether to accept, qualify, test or revise the conclusion.", "characteristics": { "substance": "activity", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "observed and measured" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Names folded into this entry, which a task may need to split apart again: proof by example.", "1 finer distinctions are held as aliases rather than separate entries, because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it.", "Described in 70 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 inductive reasoning, 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": [ { "relation": "covers", "note": "Finer kinds folded into this entry because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it. Each is a model waiting to be split out when one does.", "targets": [ "proof by example" ] } ], "standing": "Described in 70 Wikipedia languages, which measures how widely it is written about rather than how important or how common it is. 1 finer distinctions are held inside this entry as names rather than as separate models.", "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "identity-and-classification", "name": "Identity, naming and classification", "description": "How an agent tells one inductive reasoning from another, and a inductive reasoning 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 inductive reasoning, 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 inductive reasoning, 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 inductive reasoning 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 inductive reasoning, 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 inductive reasoning, 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 inductive reasoning 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 inductive reasoning 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 inductive reasoning, 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 inductive reasoning, 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 inductive reasoning 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 inductive reasoning from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a inductive reasoning, 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 inductive reasoning, 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 inductive reasoning 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 inductive reasoning 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 inductive reasoning between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a inductive reasoning, 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 inductive reasoning, 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 inductive reasoning 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 inductive reasoning, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a inductive reasoning 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 inductive reasoning, 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 inductive reasoning, 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 inductive reasoning 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 inductive reasoning 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 inductive reasoning, 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 inductive reasoning and what marks it done.", "questions": [ { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a step of a inductive reasoning, 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 inductive reasoning, 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 inductive reasoning 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 inductive reasoning consumes and what it produces.", "findings": [ { "id": "inputs-and-outputs", "name": "Inputs, outputs and side effects", "description": "The resources a inductive reasoning 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 inductive reasoning, 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 inductive reasoning, 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 inductive reasoning 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 inductive reasoning 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 inductive reasoning 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 inductive reasoning 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 inductive reasoning 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 inductive reasoning?", "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 inductive reasoning?", "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 inductive reasoning 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 inductive reasoning and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a inductive reasoning, 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 inductive reasoning, 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 inductive reasoning 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 inductive reasoning is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a inductive reasoning, 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 inductive reasoning, 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 inductive reasoning 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 } } } }