{ "model": { "rank": 6826, "code": "thing-q854648", "model_id": "vr.tr.gossip", "name": "gossip", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to recognise gossip episodes, assess their evidential and social context, and decide whether to receive, question, retain or relay them.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Cross-cutting context", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "XCT", "domain": "XCT.STA", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q854648/", "tier": 2, "score": 58, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [], "aliasCount": 0, "merged": 0, "knownIn": 58, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": "vr.tr.gossip", "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q854648", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q854648", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-09T23:35:13Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 18.6, "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: 01a08885-b325-7aa0-a2e6-6f91cb6e74c4\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: gossip\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: ACT.ACT\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 007: 1001 register", "usd": 0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 54.9, "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: 01a08885-b31d-7b03-837d-89d7f82d03fd\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: gossip\nRegistry id: vr.tr.gossip\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.ACT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\n\nContext fo" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q854648", "registryId": "vr.tr.gossip", "name": "gossip", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.ACT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q854648/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.gossip", "name": "gossip", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to recognise gossip episodes, assess their evidential and social context, and decide whether to receive, question, retain or relay them.", "definition": "Gossip is informal communication about a third party who is absent or unaware of the exchange, often involving socially relevant personal information or evaluation, although definitions differ over whether evaluation or privacy is essential.", "scope_statement": "This model owns gossip as a situated communicative act about an identifiable third party, recording competing classification criteria, participant relationships, evaluative content, circulation and possible consequences without presuming that gossip is false or malicious.", "in_scope": [ "Episodes of informal third-party talk, including spoken, written and digitally relayed communication", "Whether the subject is absent, unaware or unable to participate in the exchange", "Claims, evaluations and implications about the subject, with their attributed evidential basis", "Relationships among speakers, recipients and subjects that shape the exchange", "Audience boundaries, onward transmission and decisions about responding" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Rumour as a broader category of circulating claims with unsettled verification", "Reputation as an accumulated social assessment rather than a particular exchange", "Defamation and other legal classifications requiring separate jurisdiction-specific assessment", "Formal reporting, testimony and investigative procedures as institutional processes", "Gossip protocols in distributed computing", "The underlying conduct alleged about the subject" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Test whether the exchange concerns an identifiable third party rather than impersonal news or discussion of an abstract issue.", "Record whether the subject can hear and answer: absence or exclusion supports some definitions of gossip, while direct address may instead be criticism or confrontation.", "Do not use falsity as a defining test: separate whether an exchange qualifies as gossip from whether its claims are supported.", "Distinguish gossip from rumour by recording third-party focus and interactional context separately from uncertainty and circulation; an episode may qualify as both.", "Distinguish informal third-party exchange from authorised reporting by examining purpose, recipient role and procedure rather than merely whether the content concerns someone absent." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Classification criterion", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Broad third-party talk; evaluative third-party talk; informal private-affairs talk; other explicitly stated criterion", "why_it_matters": "Makes the chosen definition visible and allows an episode to be classified differently under competing definitions." }, { "name": "Subject participation", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Absent; present but excluded; able to participate; participation unknown", "why_it_matters": "Helps distinguish gossip from direct discussion and records whether the subject has an immediate opportunity to respond." }, { "name": "Participant relationship", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Speaker-recipient-subject ties, including familiarity, dependence, authority, conflict and group membership", "why_it_matters": "Provides context for interpreting access, credibility, pressure and potential consequences." }, { "name": "Evaluative orientation", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Positive; negative; mixed; neutral; ambiguous, recorded separately for explicit wording and implied evaluation", "why_it_matters": "Avoids treating gossip as necessarily derogatory and makes interpretive uncertainty explicit." }, { "name": "Claim support", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Unassessed; unsupported; supported by specified evidence; contested; contradicted; not truth-assessable", "why_it_matters": "Keeps classification as gossip separate from the evidential standing of each claim." }, { "name": "Attribution distance", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Number of reported relay steps from an attributed observer; unknown when the chain cannot be established", "why_it_matters": "Makes hearsay chains visible without treating a short chain as proof." }, { "name": "Audience boundary", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Specified recipients; bounded group; publicly accessible; boundary unclear, with any stated onward-sharing restriction", "why_it_matters": "Supports decisions about disclosure and identifies changes in exposure." }, { "name": "Interactional purpose", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Warning; advice-seeking; affiliation; entertainment; norm evaluation; disparagement; other; unknown, with stated and inferred purposes distinguished", "why_it_matters": "Allows assessment of the exchange without presenting inferred motives as facts." } ], "affordances": [ "Classify an exchange under an explicitly chosen definition of gossip and record borderline alternatives.", "Separate claims about the subject from evaluations, insinuations and reported speech.", "Trace attributed origins and relays while identifying missing links and dependent accounts.", "Assess whether asking for evidence, inviting a response or using an appropriate reporting channel would clarify the concern.", "Choose whether to withhold, minimise, anonymise or relay content based on evidence, audience need and foreseeable consequences.", "Attach corrections or challenges to a claim and identify known recipients who may need an update." ] }, "sources": [], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "gossip-boundaries", "name": "Gossip boundaries", "description": "Establishes what makes the particular exchange count as gossip and where competing definitions diverge.", "rationale": "Without explicit boundary criteria, an agent may label all third-party discussion as gossip or restrict gossip to false, hostile claims.", "layers": [ { "id": "third-party-participation", "name": "Third-party participation", "description": "Examines who the exchange concerns and whether that subject participates.", "findings": [ { "id": "subject-and-response-position", "name": "Subject and response position", "description": "Record how recipients identify the subject and whether the subject can hear, understand and answer the exchange; leave uncertain identity or participation unresolved.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which person or group is the exchange about, and what makes that subject identifiable to these recipients?", "kind": "definition", "id": "subject-and-response-position-q01" }, { "text": "Is the subject absent, excluded or able to respond, and does the selected definition require absence?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "subject-and-response-position-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "definition-and-neighbours", "name": "Definition and neighbouring acts", "description": "Separates classification criteria from judgments about truth, tone and legitimacy.", "findings": [ { "id": "explicit-gossip-criterion", "name": "Explicit gossip criterion", "description": "State whether classification requires evaluation, informality or private subject matter, and allow overlap with rumour, praise, warning or complaint.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the adopted definition include neutral third-party information and praise, or require evaluative or private content?", "kind": "definition", "id": "explicit-gossip-criterion-q01" }, { "text": "What features distinguish this exchange from routine coordination, public-interest discussion or formal reporting?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "explicit-gossip-criterion-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "claims-and-hearsay", "name": "Claims and hearsay", "description": "Makes the content of gossip and its attributed support inspectable.", "rationale": "An agent must avoid converting repeated talk, insinuation or attributed speech into an established fact about the subject.", "layers": [ { "id": "claim-and-evaluation", "name": "Claim and evaluation", "description": "Separates allegations about events from judgments about character or appropriateness.", "findings": [ { "id": "assertion-versus-implication", "name": "Assertion versus implication", "description": "Distinguish explicit propositions, opinions, quotations, jokes and insinuations, preserving uncertainty about what the speaker intended.", "questions": [ { "text": "What exactly is asserted about the subject, and what is only implied, quoted or evaluated?", "kind": "definition", "id": "assertion-versus-implication-q01" }, { "text": "Which parts could be checked against evidence, and which depend on a value judgment or interpretation?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "assertion-versus-implication-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "origin-and-corroboration", "name": "Origin and corroboration", "description": "Tracks attributed observation, relay chains and supporting or conflicting accounts.", "findings": [ { "id": "hearsay-chain-and-support", "name": "Hearsay chain and support", "description": "Record claimed access to the information separately from verified access, and distinguish independent corroboration from repetitions of one account.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does the speaker claim direct observation, inference or another person's account, and which links can actually be inspected?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "hearsay-chain-and-support-q01" }, { "text": "Do apparently corroborating accounts have independent origins, and what evidence supports or challenges the claim?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "hearsay-chain-and-support-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "social-position-and-meaning", "name": "Social position and meaning", "description": "Records the relationships, purposes and local expectations that give the exchange its significance.", "rationale": "The same statement can have different implications depending on who speaks, who receives it and their relationships to the subject.", "layers": [ { "id": "participant-ties-and-power", "name": "Participant ties and power", "description": "Examines familiarity, loyalties, conflicts and dependencies within the gossip episode.", "findings": [ { "id": "relational-stakes", "name": "Relational stakes", "description": "Record relevant ties and authority differences without assuming they establish dishonesty, credibility or motive.", "questions": [ { "text": "How are speaker, recipient and subject connected, including any dependence, rivalry or authority relationship?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "relational-stakes-q01" }, { "text": "Could these relationships constrain the recipient's ability to question the account or the subject's ability to answer it?", "kind": "action", "id": "relational-stakes-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "purpose-and-norms", "name": "Purpose and norms", "description": "Examines what the exchange is presented as doing and which standards it invokes.", "findings": [ { "id": "stated-purpose-and-invoked-standard", "name": "Stated purpose and invoked standard", "description": "Separate participants' stated purposes from analyst interpretations, and identify whose expectations ground praise or criticism.", "questions": [ { "text": "Is the exchange presented as a warning, request for advice, entertainment or something else, and whose account supports that description?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "stated-purpose-and-invoked-standard-q01" }, { "text": "Which expectation about the subject's behaviour is invoked, and is that expectation shared, contested or unknown?", "kind": "definition", "id": "stated-purpose-and-invoked-standard-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "circulation-and-response", "name": "Circulation and response", "description": "Supports decisions about audience expansion, intervention and correction.", "rationale": "Handling gossip requires judging what a further communication would expose or change, alongside what remains uncertain.", "layers": [ { "id": "audience-and-exposure", "name": "Audience and exposure", "description": "Tracks intended recipients, known reach and changes caused by forwarding or publication.", "findings": [ { "id": "sharing-boundary-and-transformation", "name": "Sharing boundary and transformation", "description": "Record the intended audience and any confidentiality expectation, distinguishing observed transmission from possible spread and tracking changes in wording or certainty.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who was meant to receive the account, who is known to have received it, and what onward-sharing expectations were expressed?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "sharing-boundary-and-transformation-q01" }, { "text": "Would relaying it expand identification of the subject, remove qualifications or make hearsay appear authoritative?", "kind": "action", "id": "sharing-boundary-and-transformation-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "response-and-repair", "name": "Response and repair", "description": "Considers proportionate ways to handle the account and address known errors.", "findings": [ { "id": "handling-and-correction-choice", "name": "Handling and correction choice", "description": "Assess whether to question, withhold, minimise, relay or redirect the exchange, and distinguish anticipated consequences from observed effects.", "questions": [ { "text": "Given the claim's support, sensitivity and recipients' need to know, what response is justified and what remains uncertain?", "kind": "action", "id": "handling-and-correction-choice-q01" }, { "text": "If the account is challenged or corrected, which known recipients can receive the update, and how can unnecessary repetition be avoided?", "kind": "action", "id": "handling-and-correction-choice-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 intended sense is inferred to be interpersonal communicative activity from ACT.ACT; no registry definition was supplied.", "Research definitions differ on whether gossip must be evaluative, concern private information, or involve a target known to the participants.", "The listed varieties overlap rather than forming a single taxonomy; measurement conventions should be checked against the particular research tradition." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of gossip this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-kinds", "name": "Kinds and varieties", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Positive gossip", "Negative gossip", "Neutral or descriptive gossip", "Workplace gossip", "Celebrity gossip" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of gossip 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": [ "Sharing information about reputations and potential interaction partners.", "Communicating and enforcing group norms.", "Building relationships through shared information and interpretation.", "Warning others about perceived misconduct or unreliability.", "Influencing status, alliances and exclusion within groups." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of gossip 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": "Frequency of gossip episodes", "typical_range": "No universal range; depends on the episode definition and observation period.", "unit": "episodes per observation period" }, { "quantity": "Proportion of conversation classified as gossip", "typical_range": "0-100%; observed values depend strongly on the coding definition and sample.", "unit": "percent" }, { "quantity": "Evaluative valence", "typical_range": "Commonly coded as positive, negative or neutral; some studies use rating scales.", "unit": "categorical code or study-specific scale score" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of gossip 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": [ "Inaccurate or decontextualized information can damage reputations.", "Sharing personal information can violate privacy and confidence.", "Repeated negative gossip can contribute to bullying and social exclusion.", "Selective transmission can reinforce stereotypes and factional conflict.", "Fear of becoming a gossip target can undermine trust and participation." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of gossip 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": [ "Norms governing acceptable topics, audiences and disclosure differ across communities and cultural settings.", "Local terms may carry a stronger implication of malice or triviality than the broader definitions used in research." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of gossip 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": "Rumor", "difference": "Rumor concerns information circulating without secure verification; gossip concerns third parties and can convey verified information." }, { "name": "Small talk", "difference": "Small talk is casual conversation that need not concern a third party; gossip does." }, { "name": "Slander", "difference": "Slander is a legal category of spoken defamation whose elements depend on jurisdiction; gossip need not be false, harmful or legally actionable." }, { "name": "Reputation", "difference": "Reputation is a socially held assessment of someone; gossip is communication that may shape that assessment." }, { "name": "Gossip protocol", "difference": "A gossip protocol is a computing method for distributing information among nodes, rather than interpersonal talk about third parties." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of gossip this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which research traditions require evaluative content for gossip, which include neutral third-party talk, and which operational definition should Vercy adopt?", "How should absence and exclusion be operationalised for group chats, public posts and exchanges the subject can read only later?", "Under what conditions should talk about organisations, public figures or fictional characters qualify alongside talk about private individuals?", "What evidence can distinguish affiliation, warning, norm evaluation and reputational aggression without overinterpreting a speaker's motives?", "How should observed effects on reputation, trust or belonging be attributed to a gossip episode when prior relationships and other communications also matter?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 5, "layers": 9, "findings": 15, "questions": 23 } }, "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 gossip, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an AI agent to recognise gossip episodes, assess their evidential and social context, and decide whether to receive, question, retain or relay them.", "characteristics": { "substance": "abstract", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "observed and measured" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Described in 58 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 gossip, and on what evidence are they told apart?" ], "whatItIsMadeOf": "an abstraction with no physical instance", "physicalCharacter": [ "Does nothing on its own; everything it does, something else did to it.", "These come from the domain this entry sits in rather than from the entry itself, so treat them as a first guess about the whole domain applied to one thing." ], "whatCanBeDoneWithIt": [ "observe it, measure it, record its state" ], "howItIsRecognised": [ "Nothing to see. What is recognised is an instance of it, and which instances count is exactly what is argued about." ], "relatedModels": [], "standing": "Described in 58 Wikipedia languages, which measures how widely it is written about rather than how important or how common it is.", "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "identity-and-classification", "name": "Identity, naming and classification", "description": "How an agent tells one gossip from another, and a gossip 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 gossip, 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 gossip, 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 gossip 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 gossip, 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 gossip, 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 gossip 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 gossip 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 gossip, 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 gossip, 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 gossip 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 gossip from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a gossip, 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 gossip, 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 gossip 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 gossip 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 gossip between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a gossip, 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 gossip, 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 gossip 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 gossip, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a gossip 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 gossip, 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 gossip, 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 gossip 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 gossip 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 gossip 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 gossip 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 gossip 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 gossip?", "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 gossip?", "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 gossip 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 gossip and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a gossip, 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 gossip, 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 gossip 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 gossip is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a gossip, 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 gossip, 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 gossip is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "statistics": { "bundles": 5, "layers": 10, "findings": 12, "questions": 32 } } } }