{ "model": { "rank": 4540, "code": "thing-q843894", "model_id": "vr.tr.critical-thinking", "name": "critical thinking", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise and support critical thinking by recording how a person or group examines claims, evaluates reasons, reaches judgments and revises them under uncertainty.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Activities and processes", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "ACT", "domain": "ACT.ACT", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q843894/", "tier": 2, "score": 74, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [ "Tafakkur", "cognitive bias mitigation", "debiasing" ], "aliasCount": 3, "merged": 3, "knownIn": 74, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q843894", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q843894", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-09T20:27:50Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 25.3, "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: 01a087da-0cb6-74a1-887b-bbab06fe2a57\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: critical thinking\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: 10", "usd": 0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 61.7, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.4\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a087da-0cc0-7840-8b5c-6aaa0b44431b\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: critical thinking\nRegistry id: vr.tr.critical-thinking\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.ACT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entr" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q843894", "registryId": "vr.tr.critical-thinking", "name": "critical thinking", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.ACT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q843894/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.critical-thinking", "name": "critical thinking", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise and support critical thinking by recording how a person or group examines claims, evaluates reasons, reaches judgments and revises them under uncertainty.", "definition": "Critical thinking is the deliberate evaluation of claims, evidence, assumptions and inferences to reach reasoned judgments about what to believe or do, with competing accounts emphasizing logical appraisal, reflective inquiry, or self-regulation and intellectual dispositions.", "scope_statement": "This model owns critical thinking as an activity and assessable capacity for reflective judgment, including competing conceptions, reasoning practices, dispositions and context-dependent evidence of performance; it does not assume a single settled definition.", "in_scope": [ "Competing definitions and their criteria for a critical-thinking episode", "Clarification of claims, questions, assumptions and argumentative structure", "Evaluation of evidence, sources, inferences and alternative explanations", "Reflective judgment, calibrated confidence and reason-responsive revision", "Dispositions, contextual supports and assessment of demonstrated performance" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Formal logic as a mathematical discipline", "General intelligence and cognition beyond reflective evaluation", "Creative idea generation except where alternatives are evaluated", "Persuasion and rhetoric assessed solely by their effect on an audience", "Domain-specific factual knowledge and professional decision protocols", "Moral correctness of conclusions independently of the reasoning used" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "An episode exposes reasons and evaluates their adequacy; merely expressing an opinion does not establish critical thinking.", "Evaluation applies to preferred claims as well as opposing claims; reflexive disagreement or universal distrust is insufficient.", "A correct conclusion without an inspectable reasoning process provides limited evidence of critical thinking.", "Persuasive success is distinguishable from evidential support: a convincing argument can still rest on weak premises.", "The thinker can identify uncertainty or conditions for revision; confidence alone is not evidence of sound judgment." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Adopted conception", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Named framework and version, locally specified conception, or unresolved comparison", "why_it_matters": "Determines what counts as critical thinking and prevents incompatible definitions from being silently combined." }, { "name": "Unit of assessment", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Reasoning episode, individual capacity, individual disposition, or collective deliberation", "why_it_matters": "A strong performance on one task does not by itself establish a stable personal or group capacity." }, { "name": "Claim and reason structure", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Claims linked to premises, evidence, assumptions, objections and conclusions", "why_it_matters": "Makes the reasoning available for inspection and reveals where support is missing." }, { "name": "Evidence appraisal", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Unexamined, partially examined, adequate for the stated purpose, inadequate, or contested, with justification", "why_it_matters": "Separates possessing information from evaluating its relevance, credibility and limitations." }, { "name": "Inference type", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Deductive, inductive, abductive, causal, analogical, practical, or mixed", "why_it_matters": "Different inferences require different tests of support." }, { "name": "Judgment confidence", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Explicitly anchored ordinal rating or probability from 0 to 1 where meaningful", "why_it_matters": "Records uncertainty without treating a confidence report as proof of calibration." }, { "name": "Revision conditions", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Judgment linked to evidence, objections or contextual changes that would warrant revision", "why_it_matters": "Makes openness to correction concrete and assessable." }, { "name": "Assessment result", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Instrument-specific score with rubric, task, conditions and uncertainty; no assumed universal unit", "why_it_matters": "Prevents scores from different tasks or instruments from being treated as interchangeable." }, { "name": "Domain dependence", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Performance linked to subject knowledge, task familiarity, language and available resources", "why_it_matters": "Supports cautious interpretation of performance and claims about transfer." } ], "affordances": [ "Elicit a precise claim and reconstruct its supporting argument for confirmation.", "Identify unstated assumptions, missing evidence and unsupported inferential steps.", "Compare sources and competing explanations using explicit criteria.", "Generate a relevant counterexample or objection and invite a reasoned response.", "Record a provisional judgment, its confidence and conditions for revision.", "Select contextualised assessment or practice tasks and interpret their results within stated limits." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "conceptions-and-boundaries", "name": "Conceptions and boundaries", "description": "Records competing accounts of critical thinking and the instances each account recognises.", "rationale": "A model must expose definitional disagreement before judging whether an activity or person meets its criteria.", "layers": [ { "id": "definitions-and-commitments", "name": "Definitions and commitments", "description": "Compares accounts centred on argument evaluation, reflective judgment, dispositions or situated practice.", "findings": [ { "id": "framework-specific-criteria", "name": "Framework-specific criteria", "description": "Record each definition, its proponents and source, and whether it requires skills, dispositions, contextual knowledge or particular intellectual standards.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which proponents and primary texts define this conception of critical thinking?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "framework-specific-criteria-q01" }, { "text": "What does this conception require, and which requirements do competing accounts dispute?", "kind": "definition", "id": "framework-specific-criteria-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "instances-and-neighbours", "name": "Instances and neighbours", "description": "Tests the boundary between critical thinking and related reasoning activities.", "findings": [ { "id": "episode-inclusion-test", "name": "Episode inclusion test", "description": "Record examples and counterexamples that separate reflective evaluation from recall, fluent explanation, persuasion and habitual scepticism.", "questions": [ { "text": "What observable reasoning makes this episode an instance of critical thinking under the adopted conception?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "episode-inclusion-test-q01" }, { "text": "Would an accidentally correct answer or an unsupported rejection satisfy that conception, and why?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "episode-inclusion-test-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "claims-and-argument-reconstruction", "name": "Claims and argument reconstruction", "description": "Makes the question, claims and inferential commitments explicit before evaluation.", "rationale": "An agent cannot fairly assess reasoning if it has misunderstood the claim or supplied premises the thinker did not endorse.", "layers": [ { "id": "question-and-claim-clarification", "name": "Question and claim clarification", "description": "Identifies what is being asked or asserted and resolves consequential ambiguity.", "findings": [ { "id": "precise-target-of-judgment", "name": "Precise target of judgment", "description": "Record the claim's terms, scope, qualifications and whether the issue concerns description, explanation, prediction or action.", "questions": [ { "text": "What exact claim is being evaluated, including its quantifiers, conditions and ambiguous terms?", "kind": "definition", "id": "precise-target-of-judgment-q01" }, { "text": "Which clarification would materially change the evidence or reasoning needed to answer the question?", "kind": "action", "id": "precise-target-of-judgment-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "premises-and-inference", "name": "Premises and inference", "description": "Reconstructs how the conclusion is supposed to follow from explicit and implicit reasons.", "findings": [ { "id": "endorsed-argument-map", "name": "Endorsed argument map", "description": "Record premises, intermediate conclusions, hidden assumptions and inference types while distinguishing the original reasoning from an agent's proposed reconstruction.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which premises and assumptions does the thinker actually endorse, and which were supplied during reconstruction?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "endorsed-argument-map-q01" }, { "text": "What test of inferential support fits this argument, and does the conclusion exceed what its premises warrant?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "endorsed-argument-map-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-alternative-testing", "name": "Evidence and alternative testing", "description": "Examines evidential support and tests claims against plausible objections and alternatives.", "rationale": "Critical evaluation needs more than collecting supporting statements or attaching fallacy labels.", "layers": [ { "id": "source-and-evidence-appraisal", "name": "Source and evidence appraisal", "description": "Evaluates the connection between a source, its evidence and the particular claim under consideration.", "findings": [ { "id": "claim-specific-evidence-quality", "name": "Claim-specific evidence quality", "description": "Record relevance, methods, expertise, independence, corroboration and limitations, including whether apparent agreement comes from repeated use of one source.", "questions": [ { "text": "What original evidence supports this claim, and are the supporting reports independent?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "claim-specific-evidence-quality-q01" }, { "text": "How do the evidence's methods, limitations and relevance affect the support it provides for this particular conclusion?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "claim-specific-evidence-quality-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "counterexamples-and-rival-explanations", "name": "Counterexamples and rival explanations", "description": "Uses targeted challenges to distinguish a supported judgment from selective confirmation.", "findings": [ { "id": "discriminating-challenges", "name": "Discriminating challenges", "description": "Record plausible alternatives, strong objections and observations that would discriminate between them without treating every imaginable alternative as equally credible.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which counterexample or rival explanation most seriously challenges the current reasoning?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "discriminating-challenges-q01" }, { "text": "What feasible observation or check would distinguish the leading alternatives?", "kind": "action", "id": "discriminating-challenges-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "judgment-and-self-correction", "name": "Judgment and self-correction", "description": "Connects evaluated reasons to provisional conclusions, confidence and subsequent revision.", "rationale": "The model must capture how evaluation changes judgment and when further inquiry is warranted.", "layers": [ { "id": "warrant-and-uncertainty", "name": "Warrant and uncertainty", "description": "Records the strength and limits of a conclusion separately from any practical need to act.", "findings": [ { "id": "proportionate-conclusion", "name": "Proportionate conclusion", "description": "Record what the available reasons warrant, remaining uncertainty and the distinction between accepting a claim and acting under unresolved uncertainty.", "questions": [ { "text": "How strong a conclusion is justified, and which uncertainties should remain explicit?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "proportionate-conclusion-q01" }, { "text": "Do the stakes and costs of further inquiry support checking more, suspending judgment or taking a provisional action?", "kind": "action", "id": "proportionate-conclusion-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "reflection-and-revision", "name": "Reflection and revision", "description": "Examines responses to criticism and the consistency of standards applied to preferred and disfavoured claims.", "findings": [ { "id": "reason-responsive-updating", "name": "Reason-responsive updating", "description": "Record revision triggers, actual responses to new reasons and explanations for retaining or changing a judgment; changing one's mind is not automatically evidence of improvement.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence or objection would warrant revising this judgment, and are comparable standards applied to competing claims?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "reason-responsive-updating-q01" }, { "text": "After a challenge, should the claim, confidence, supporting argument or inquiry plan change, and for what reason?", "kind": "action", "id": "reason-responsive-updating-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "dispositions-context-and-assessment", "name": "Dispositions, context and assessment", "description": "Separates demonstrated reasoning from willingness, opportunity and claims about general ability.", "rationale": "Observed performance depends on the task and conditions, so a single response cannot safely support unrestricted judgments about a thinker.", "layers": [ { "id": "willingness-and-opportunity", "name": "Willingness and opportunity", "description": "Records whether the thinker is inclined and able to examine reasons in the actual setting.", "findings": [ { "id": "disposition-in-context", "name": "Disposition in context", "description": "Record evidence of intellectual humility, fair consideration and persistence alongside relevant time, knowledge, language, access and social constraints.", "questions": [ { "text": "What repeated behaviour supports an inference about willingness to evaluate reasons, beyond self-report?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "disposition-in-context-q01" }, { "text": "Could the observed difficulty reflect missing knowledge, inaccessible presentation or pressure against dissent, and what support would help distinguish these explanations?", "kind": "action", "id": "disposition-in-context-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "performance-and-transfer", "name": "Performance and transfer", "description": "Records how assessment tasks operationalise critical thinking and how far their results can be generalised.", "findings": [ { "id": "bounded-assessment-interpretation", "name": "Bounded assessment interpretation", "description": "Record the instrument or rubric, assessed conception, task conditions, scoring evidence and demonstrated transfer across tasks or domains.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which aspects of critical thinking does this task measure, and what evidence supports its scoring and intended interpretation?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "bounded-assessment-interpretation-q01" }, { "text": "What additional performance evidence is needed before generalising this result to another domain, a stable capacity or a group?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "bounded-assessment-interpretation-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 an activity and educational construct, not critical theory; the registry supplies no narrower sense.", "Robert Ennis emphasizes reasonable reflective thinking about belief and action; the American Philosophical Association Delphi project led by Peter Facione emphasizes purposeful, self-regulatory judgment. These are influential accounts, not a universally binding definition.", "The domain-generality of critical thinking, transfer between subjects, and the relationship between skills and dispositions remain debated; named assessments should be checked for edition, validity and population fit." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of critical thinking 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": [ "Informal-logic approaches emphasizing arguments and their evaluation", "Reflective-inquiry approaches emphasizing problems, evidence and warranted conclusions", "Skills-and-dispositions approaches emphasizing reasoning abilities and willingness to use them" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of critical thinking 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": [ "Education: evaluating students' reasoning and teaching them to justify conclusions.", "Scientific inquiry: comparing explanations, appraising evidence and identifying alternative hypotheses.", "Professional decisions: assessing uncertain evidence and explaining the grounds for action.", "Media literacy: evaluating sources, distinguishing claims from support and checking misleading inferences.", "Public deliberation: examining policy arguments, assumptions and competing values." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of critical thinking 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": "Critical-thinking performance assessed by instruments such as the California Critical Thinking Skills Test or Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal", "typical_range": "Instrument-, edition- and population-dependent; no universal typical range", "unit": "Instrument-specific raw or standardized score" }, { "quantity": "Disposition toward critical thinking assessed by the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory", "typical_range": "Scale- and population-dependent; distinct from demonstrated reasoning performance", "unit": "Instrument-specific inventory score" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of critical thinking 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": [ "Motivated reasoning: using analytical ability to defend a preferred conclusion while applying weaker scrutiny to supporting evidence.", "Equating critical thinking with habitual skepticism, fault-finding or rejection of expertise.", "Applying formal reasoning correctly to false premises, poor evidence or inadequate subject knowledge.", "Assuming performance on a reasoning test establishes reliable reasoning across unfamiliar domains.", "Treating intellectual confidence or self-reported open-mindedness as demonstrated competence." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of critical thinking 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 English-language educational construct overlaps with other traditions of logic, argumentation and reflective inquiry, but translations and curricular categories are not necessarily equivalent.", "Assessment across languages and educational settings requires checking linguistic demands, cultural assumptions and the appropriateness of comparison norms." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of critical thinking 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": "Logical reasoning", "difference": "Logical reasoning concerns inferential relations; critical thinking also evaluates evidence, source credibility, assumptions and whether reasoning should be revised." }, { "name": "Problem solving", "difference": "Problem solving seeks a solution; critical thinking evaluates whether the problem framing, proposed solution and supporting reasons are justified." }, { "name": "Scientific thinking", "difference": "Scientific thinking uses methods for empirical investigation and explanation; critical thinking also applies to ethical, practical and interpretive judgments." }, { "name": "Metacognition", "difference": "Metacognition involves monitoring and regulating cognition; critical thinking specifically concerns the quality and justification of judgments." }, { "name": "Critical theory", "difference": "Critical theory names traditions of social critique; critical thinking names reasoning practices and dispositions without requiring commitment to those traditions." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of critical thinking this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which primary-source definitions and proponents should anchor the model, and where do their requirements for skills, dispositions and intellectual standards conflict?", "How much of assessed critical-thinking performance transfers across domains once subject knowledge and task familiarity are accounted for?", "Which assessment instruments support defensible interpretations across languages, educational backgrounds and accessibility needs?", "What evidence distinguishes durable willingness to think critically from compliance with prompts in a favourable setting?", "When should collective deliberation count as critical thinking at the group level, especially when participants contribute different parts of the reasoning?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 17, "questions": 27 } }, "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 critical thinking, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an agent to recognise and support critical thinking by recording how a person or group examines claims, evaluates reasons, reaches judgments and revises them under uncertainty.", "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: Tafakkur, cognitive bias mitigation, debiasing.", "3 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 critical thinking, 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": [ "Tafakkur", "cognitive bias mitigation", "debiasing" ] } ], "standing": "Described in 74 Wikipedia languages, which measures how widely it is written about rather than how important or how common it is. 3 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 critical thinking from another, and a critical thinking 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 critical thinking, 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 critical thinking, 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 critical thinking 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 critical thinking, 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 critical thinking, 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 critical thinking 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 critical thinking 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 critical thinking, 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 critical thinking, 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 critical thinking 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 critical thinking from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a critical thinking, 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 critical thinking, 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 critical thinking 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 critical thinking 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 critical thinking between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a critical thinking, 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 critical thinking, 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 critical thinking 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 critical thinking, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a critical thinking 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 critical thinking, 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 critical thinking, 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 critical thinking 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 critical thinking 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 critical thinking, 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 critical thinking and what marks it done.", "questions": [ { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a step of a critical thinking, 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 critical thinking, 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 critical thinking 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 critical thinking consumes and what it produces.", "findings": [ { "id": "inputs-and-outputs", "name": "Inputs, outputs and side effects", "description": "The resources a critical thinking 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 critical thinking, 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 critical thinking, 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 critical thinking 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 critical thinking 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 critical thinking 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 critical thinking 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 critical thinking 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 critical thinking?", "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 critical thinking?", "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 critical thinking 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 critical thinking and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a critical thinking, 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 critical thinking, 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 critical thinking 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 critical thinking is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a critical thinking, 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 critical thinking, 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 critical thinking 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 } } } }