{ "model": { "rank": 4554, "code": "thing-q489750", "model_id": "vr.tr.fanaticism", "name": "fanaticism", "purpose": "Enable an agent to assess context-specific claims of fanaticism, distinguish rigid and overriding commitment from strong conviction, and identify proportionate responses without treating a contested label as a diagnosis.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Activities and processes", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "ACT", "domain": "ACT.ACT", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q489750/", "tier": 2, "score": 74, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [ "religious fanaticism" ], "aliasCount": 1, "merged": 1, "knownIn": 74, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q489750", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q489750", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-09T20:30:00Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 19.1, "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: 01a087db-fffb-7ed2-92d1-6db1f35de8da\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: fanaticism\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: 1001 regi", "usd": 0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 63.9, "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: 01a087db-ffef-7b02-b66c-43af21fbd1ee\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: fanaticism\nRegistry id: vr.tr.fanaticism\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.ACT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\n\nCo" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q489750", "registryId": "vr.tr.fanaticism", "name": "fanaticism", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.ACT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q489750/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.fanaticism", "name": "fanaticism", "purpose": "Enable an agent to assess context-specific claims of fanaticism, distinguish rigid and overriding commitment from strong conviction, and identify proportionate responses without treating a contested label as a diagnosis.", "definition": "Fanaticism is a contested evaluative concept describing commitment to a belief, cause, or object of devotion that is regarded as excessive, rigid, and resistant to criticism, often involving intolerance of alternatives.", "scope_statement": "This model owns fanaticism as a contested pattern of commitment and action in which devotion to a cause, authority, identity, or practice may override correction, competing obligations, and recognition of others' legitimate claims; it also owns the evidence and perspective behind attributing that pattern.", "in_scope": [ "Competing definitions emphasizing excessive zeal, resistance to correction, unconditional loyalty, or intolerance", "The object of devotion and the demands treated as binding", "Responses to counterevidence, internal criticism, competing duties, and opportunities to reconsider", "Observable treatment of dissenters, outsiders, and people who withdraw", "Individual and collective patterns, with explicit limits on generalizing between them", "Context, duration, and uncertainty of accusations of fanaticism" ], "out_of_scope": [ "The truth or falsity of a religious, political, moral, or scientific doctrine considered independently of commitment to it", "Ordinary enthusiasm, fandom, expertise, and disciplined practice without additional evidence", "Extremism defined solely by distance from prevailing political or social positions", "Specific violent acts, terrorism, and criminal responsibility as independently assessed phenomena", "Psychiatric diagnoses and clinical explanations of an individual's behavior", "The complete institutional structure or history of a movement" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Against enthusiasm: examine whether devotion repeatedly overrides acknowledged obligations or others' rights, rather than merely attracting substantial time and energy.", "Against principled conviction: examine whether the person can recognize relevant counterevidence, explain limits on permissible means, and acknowledge legitimate disagreement; refusal to compromise alone is insufficient.", "Against extremism: assess how a commitment is maintained and enacted, rather than how unpopular or distant from the mainstream its content is.", "Against obedience under pressure: establish whether apparent uncompromising conduct expresses endorsed commitment, coercion, dependency, or strategic conformity.", "Against a hostile stereotype: require attributable statements or conduct in context; group membership, identity, and an opponent's accusation do not establish fanaticism." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Definition adopted", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Excessive-zeal account; epistemic-rigidity account; overriding-commitment account; intolerance account; mixed account; unresolved", "why_it_matters": "The same evidence may support one interpretation and fail another; these are provisional analytical alternatives, not a settled taxonomy." }, { "name": "Object of devotion", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Actor or collective linked to a cause, doctrine, leader, identity, institution, or practice", "why_it_matters": "Identifies what receives exceptional loyalty and whether loyalty to a leader differs from loyalty to stated principles." }, { "name": "Commitment priority", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Negotiable; strongly prioritized; explicitly unconditional; behaviorally overriding; unclear", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes intensity from a commitment that displaces other obligations across concrete decisions." }, { "name": "Response to correction", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Engages and revises; engages without revising; selectively dismisses; excludes correction in principle; unobserved", "why_it_matters": "Disagreement after consideration must be distinguished from making a claim immune to correction." }, { "name": "Treatment of dissent", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Permitted; debated; stigmatized; excluded; coerced; threatened; harmed; unknown", "why_it_matters": "Records concrete responses to disagreement without assuming that all intense devotion entails hostility." }, { "name": "Constraints on permissible means", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Explicit and observed; explicit but inconsistently observed; conditional on success; explicitly rejected; unknown", "why_it_matters": "Shows whether advancing the commitment remains subject to ethical and practical limits." }, { "name": "Observed persistence", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Number of independently documented episodes and observation interval in days, with contexts recorded", "why_it_matters": "Separates an isolated statement from a recurring pattern without inventing a diagnostic cutoff." }, { "name": "Attribution perspective", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Claimant linked to target, adopted definition, evidence, relationship, and possible stake in the accusation", "why_it_matters": "Makes evaluative judgments traceable and exposes selective or adversarial application of the label." } ], "affordances": [ "Compare rival interpretations of the same commitment and identify which observations discriminate between them.", "Document concrete episodes of correction, sacrifice, dissent, and boundary enforcement.", "Assess a specific attribution with explicit supporting evidence, counterevidence, and uncertainty.", "Identify opportunities for voluntary reflection, protected dissent, and withdrawal from escalating demands.", "Separate responses to observable threats or coercion from judgments about beliefs or identities." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "meaning-and-attribution", "name": "Meaning and attribution", "description": "Specify the sense of fanaticism being assessed and who applies it to whom.", "rationale": "An evaluative accusation cannot become a usable assessment unless its definition, perspective, and evidential burden are explicit.", "layers": [ { "id": "competing-definitions", "name": "Competing definitions", "description": "Keep alternative accounts separate until their implications have been examined.", "findings": [ { "id": "definition-dependent-classification", "name": "Definition-dependent classification", "description": "A working assessment must state whether its criterion is excessive zeal, resistance to correction, overriding devotion, intolerance, or a specified combination.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which author, research tradition, community, or speaker supplies the definition being used, and what does that definition require?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "definition-dependent-classification-q01" }, { "text": "Would this case qualify under a rigidity-based account but fail an account requiring intolerance or harmful conduct?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "definition-dependent-classification-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "accusation-and-evidence", "name": "Accusation and evidence", "description": "Distinguish the act of calling someone fanatical from the conduct offered to justify it.", "findings": [ { "id": "attribution-is-not-observation", "name": "Attribution is not observation", "description": "Record an accusation separately from its supporting episodes and assess whether equivalent conduct by allies receives the same judgment.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who used the label, about which actor and period, and with what direct evidence?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "attribution-is-not-observation-q01" }, { "text": "Would the same criteria classify comparable conduct by the accuser's own group in the same way?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "attribution-is-not-observation-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "devotion-and-overriding-demands", "name": "Devotion and overriding demands", "description": "Examine what commands loyalty and what that loyalty displaces.", "rationale": "Strong attachment becomes relevant to fanaticism through its priority and demands, not merely its emotional intensity.", "layers": [ { "id": "object-and-authority", "name": "Object and authority", "description": "Identify the commitment's target and the authority allowed to interpret its requirements.", "findings": [ { "id": "loyalty-target-and-interpreter", "name": "Loyalty target and interpreter", "description": "Distinguish devotion to a principle from deference to a person or institution claiming to speak for it.", "questions": [ { "text": "What receives ultimate loyalty, and who is accepted as entitled to define what that loyalty demands?", "kind": "definition", "id": "loyalty-target-and-interpreter-q01" }, { "text": "When a leader's instruction conflicts with the stated cause or principle, which does the actor follow?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "loyalty-target-and-interpreter-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "sacrifice-and-competing-duties", "name": "Sacrifice and competing duties", "description": "Assess the practical priority of devotion when obligations conflict.", "findings": [ { "id": "limits-of-sacrifice", "name": "Limits of sacrifice", "description": "Record actual tradeoffs, distinguishing freely chosen personal sacrifice from demands that impose costs on dependents, dissenters, or outsiders.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which documented decisions placed the commitment above care obligations, personal welfare, or other people's legitimate claims?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "limits-of-sacrifice-q01" }, { "text": "What cost or conflicting obligation would the actor accept as a reason to limit pursuit of the cause?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "limits-of-sacrifice-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "correction-and-dissent", "name": "Correction and dissent", "description": "Examine how commitment responds to challenge and how disagreement is governed.", "rationale": "This bundle distinguishes sustained conviction from commitments maintained by excluding correction or suppressing dissent.", "layers": [ { "id": "revisability-of-claims", "name": "Revisability of claims", "description": "Assess engagement with relevant challenges while distinguishing factual claims from values and identity commitments.", "findings": [ { "id": "conditions-for-reconsideration", "name": "Conditions for reconsideration", "description": "Identify what could prompt revision of factual beliefs, chosen means, or practical commitments; a foundational value need not be treated as an empirically falsifiable claim.", "questions": [ { "text": "For each challenged commitment, is the disputed element a factual assertion, a value, an identity claim, or a proposed course of action?", "kind": "definition", "id": "conditions-for-reconsideration-q01" }, { "text": "What happened when a credible challenge arose: reasoned engagement, revision, avoidance, or rejection of any possible correction?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "conditions-for-reconsideration-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "permission-to-disagree", "name": "Permission to disagree", "description": "Record the consequences of internal criticism, external opposition, and withdrawal.", "findings": [ { "id": "dissent-and-exit-consequences", "name": "Dissent and exit consequences", "description": "Assess whether disagreement remains legitimate and whether people can reduce participation or leave without coercive consequences.", "questions": [ { "text": "What documented consequences followed questioning a leader, rejecting a demand, or leaving the group?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "dissent-and-exit-consequences-q01" }, { "text": "Which available action would protect voluntary disagreement or exit without requiring abandonment of the person's beliefs?", "kind": "action", "id": "dissent-and-exit-consequences-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "enactment-change-and-response", "name": "Enactment, change, and response", "description": "Connect professed devotion to observed conduct, changes over time, and justified action.", "rationale": "An agent needs to distinguish rhetoric from behavior and respond to specific conditions without making the label a permanent identity.", "layers": [ { "id": "means-and-pattern", "name": "Means and pattern", "description": "Examine behavioral limits and whether episodes form a persistent, context-specific pattern.", "findings": [ { "id": "conduct-beyond-professions", "name": "Conduct beyond professions", "description": "Compare stated limits with actual decisions, including counterexamples; neither militant language nor one participant's conduct establishes a collective pattern by itself.", "questions": [ { "text": "Across which independently documented episodes did pursuit of the cause respect or override stated limits on permissible means?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "conduct-beyond-professions-q01" }, { "text": "Does the evidence concern one person, an authorized organizational practice, or an unsupported generalization about a wider membership?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "conduct-beyond-professions-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "trajectory-and-proportionate-action", "name": "Trajectory and proportionate action", "description": "Track changing rigidity and demands while grounding responses in observable needs and conduct.", "findings": [ { "id": "reassessment-and-response", "name": "Reassessment and response", "description": "Reassess the attribution when evidence changes and justify interventions through specific behaviors, consent, and applicable authority rather than the label alone.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence over time shows increasing demands, renewed openness to criticism, reduced coercion, or another change in the assessed pattern?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "reassessment-and-response-q01" }, { "text": "What proportionate response is justified by the observed conduct, and what evidence would warrant changing or ending that response?", "kind": "action", "id": "reassessment-and-response-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 term has no single settled definition; accounts differ over whether intolerance, irrationality, or readiness for harmful action is essential.", "No identifier, dedicated standard, or universally accepted measurement scale is confidently supplied from recall.", "This describes the general social and philosophical sense; the listed varieties are common contextual distinctions, not a standardized taxonomy." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of fanaticism 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": [ "Religious fanaticism", "Political fanaticism", "Nationalist fanaticism" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of fanaticism 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": [ "Political and historical analysis of uncompromising movements and commitments.", "Philosophical debate about conviction, tolerance, justification, and responsiveness to criticism.", "Social psychological research on rigid commitment and hostility toward opposing groups.", "Public rhetoric used to condemn perceived excesses of belief or devotion." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of fanaticism 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": [ "Using the label to stigmatize dissent, minority beliefs, or unfamiliar practices.", "Confusing intense but revisable commitment with intolerance or unwillingness to consider evidence.", "Treating fanaticism as a psychiatric diagnosis.", "Assuming that someone labelled a fanatic necessarily supports or commits violence.", "Where intolerance accompanies rigid commitment, it can contribute to exclusion, coercion, or justification of harm." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of fanaticism 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": [ "The label's application depends on local religious, political, and historical norms; comparable commitments may be praised as devotion in one setting and condemned as fanaticism in another." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of fanaticism 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": "Zeal", "difference": "Zeal denotes energetic devotion without necessarily implying rigidity, excess, or intolerance." }, { "name": "Dogmatism", "difference": "Dogmatism concerns treating beliefs as immune to challenge; fanaticism additionally emphasizes excessive devotion or commitment." }, { "name": "Extremism", "difference": "Extremism concerns positions or methods considered extreme relative to a reference framework; fanaticism concerns the manner and intensity of commitment." }, { "name": "Fundamentalism", "difference": "Fundamentalism typically emphasizes authoritative foundational teachings; fanaticism need not appeal to foundational texts or traditions." }, { "name": "Radicalization", "difference": "Radicalization describes a process of change toward radical positions or practices, whereas fanaticism describes a form of commitment." }, { "name": "Fandom", "difference": "Fandom denotes affiliation and enthusiasm around an interest; intensity alone does not establish fanaticism." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of fanaticism this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which reference works and research traditions supply the most useful competing definitions, and is intolerance necessary under each or only a possible accompaniment?", "Which operational measures distinguish fanaticism from dogmatism, authoritarianism, identity fusion, and intense commitment, and what validity evidence supports their use?", "How can assessments distinguish uncompromising resistance to oppression from overriding devotion without making prevailing norms the standard of legitimacy?", "What evidence is sufficient to attribute fanaticism to a collective when its members, leaders, and institutional practices differ?", "Under what conditions do proposed responses support reflection and voluntary exit, and when might they deepen persecution narratives or coercive dependence?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 5, "layers": 9, "findings": 14, "questions": 22 } }, "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 fanaticism, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an agent to assess context-specific claims of fanaticism, distinguish rigid and overriding commitment from strong conviction, and identify proportionate responses without treating a contested label as a diagnosis.", "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: religious fanaticism.", "1 finer distinctions are held as aliases rather than separate entries, because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it.", "Described in 74 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 fanaticism, 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": [ "religious fanaticism" ] } ], "standing": "Described in 74 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 fanaticism from another, and a fanaticism 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 fanaticism, 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 fanaticism, 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 fanaticism 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 fanaticism, 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 fanaticism, 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 fanaticism 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 fanaticism 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 fanaticism, 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 fanaticism, 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 fanaticism 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 fanaticism from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a fanaticism, 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 fanaticism, 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 fanaticism 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 fanaticism 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 fanaticism between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a fanaticism, 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 fanaticism, 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 fanaticism 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 fanaticism, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a fanaticism 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 fanaticism, 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 fanaticism, 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 fanaticism 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 fanaticism 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 fanaticism, 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 fanaticism and what marks it done.", "questions": [ { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a step of a fanaticism, 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 fanaticism, 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 fanaticism 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 fanaticism consumes and what it produces.", "findings": [ { "id": "inputs-and-outputs", "name": "Inputs, outputs and side effects", "description": "The resources a fanaticism 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 fanaticism, 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 fanaticism, 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 fanaticism 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 fanaticism 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 fanaticism 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 fanaticism 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 fanaticism 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 fanaticism?", "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 fanaticism?", "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 fanaticism 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 fanaticism and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a fanaticism, 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 fanaticism, 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 fanaticism 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 fanaticism is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a fanaticism, 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 fanaticism, 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 fanaticism 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 } } } }