{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T09:42:58Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 25.4, "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: 01a094fe-851b-7581-b467-dbc15a117b9c\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: field of study\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: INF.KNW\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 043: 1001 ", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 75.8, "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: 01a094fe-850e-7a80-be8a-5e963c6b81b9\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: field of study\nRegistry id: vr.tr.field-of-study\nPlane / domain: INF / INF.KNW\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (no" } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T12:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:13:40+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "failure_modes_and_hazards", "owners", "standards_and_regulation", "visual_identification" ] }, "gate": { "passed": true, "version": "1.0", "at": "2026-10-08T19:09:47+00:00", "evidence": [ "completeness 1.00", "sense: Wikidata description", "2 live sources", "review by codex: pass" ] } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q1047113", "registryId": "vr.tr.field-of-study", "name": "field of study", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "INF.KNW" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q1047113/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.field-of-study", "name": "field of study", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to recognise a field of study, assess how its intellectual and institutional boundaries are established, and decide how to classify, relate or apply it.", "definition": "A field of study is a conventionally recognized area of organized inquiry or learning, distinguished by its subject matter, questions, methods, or some combination of these, whose boundaries may cross academic disciplines.", "scope_statement": "This model owns the identity, subject matter, methods, knowledge organisation, community recognition and changing boundaries of a field of study as a conventional domain of inquiry within INF / INF.KNW.", "in_scope": [ "The phenomena, objects and questions that organise the field's inquiry", "Methods, evidence standards and theoretical commitments associated with the field", "Relationships with broader, narrower and neighbouring fields", "Placement under named, versioned knowledge and education classification schemes", "Institutional recognition and indicators of intellectual continuity", "Contested boundaries, internal diversity and changes in scope" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Individual practitioners, their qualifications and career histories", "Individual publications, datasets and their substantive research findings", "Universities, departments, learned societies and publishers as organisations", "Specific degree programmes, courses and teaching events", "Occupations and professional licensing systems", "The real-world entities or phenomena studied by the field" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "A candidate field groups related questions into a continuing domain of inquiry; a research topic may identify only one problem or subject within that domain.", "A field can persist across multiple courses and institutions; a degree programme is a particular educational arrangement that teaches some selection of its content.", "A field is distinguished through subject matter, inquiry practices or an explicit organising perspective; a collection of publications alone does not establish those boundaries.", "A field describes an area of knowledge production and study; an occupation describes work performed, even when both share a name.", "A classification heading supports identification only within its stated scheme and edition; matching labels across schemes do not by themselves establish identical fields." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Organising basis", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Subject-centred, problem-centred, method-centred, application-centred, integrative, mixed or unsettled", "why_it_matters": "Explains what holds the field together and which boundary tests are appropriate." }, { "name": "Subject and question coverage", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Links to studied phenomena, objects and recurring question families, with explicit exclusions", "why_it_matters": "Supports recognition without reducing the field to its name or institutional location." }, { "name": "Inquiry and evidence profile", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Associated methods and evidence standards, qualified by subfield, tradition and context", "why_it_matters": "Allows an agent to assess methodological fit without assuming every practitioner follows one approach." }, { "name": "Boundary agreement", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Broadly shared, context-dependent, actively disputed or not assessed, with supporting attribution", "why_it_matters": "Determines whether classification can proceed directly or requires competing interpretations." }, { "name": "Field relationships", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Broader than, narrower than, overlaps, draws methods from, contributes to or historically derived from", "why_it_matters": "Prevents overlap and intellectual influence from being mistaken for a strict hierarchy." }, { "name": "Classification placement", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Scheme, edition, code, heading, purpose and mapping relation", "why_it_matters": "Makes classification decisions reproducible and prevents unsupported equivalence between schemes." }, { "name": "Institutional recognition", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Documented, mixed, limited, historical or unknown within a stated institutional and geographic context", "why_it_matters": "Records recognition without treating formal departments or degrees as universal requirements." }, { "name": "Historical continuity", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Emerging, continuing, reorganising, historical, disputed or unknown, with a reference period", "why_it_matters": "Helps distinguish a name change from a substantive change in the domain of inquiry." } ], "affordances": [ "Assess whether a candidate label denotes a field, subfield, research topic, method, programme or occupation, recording ambiguity.", "Route a research question to potentially relevant fields using subject coverage and methodological fit.", "Map a field into a named classification scheme while preserving partial matches and unmatched scope.", "Compare neighbouring fields and explain their overlap, differences and disputed boundaries.", "Identify gaps in evidence for recognition, scope or continuity and request targeted research.", "Track proposed renaming, splitting or merging while preserving the registry's authoritative granularity." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Describe fields of study, their scope and methods from academic sources.", "Classify works or courses by field using a recognized classification." ], "must_not": [ "Present a pseudoscience as a recognized field of study.", "Misrepresent a person's qualifications or field of expertise.", "Rank fields as worthless in ways that disparage the people in them without basis." ], "requires_human": [ "Reclassifying fields in ways that affect funding or accreditation." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "How fields are bounded affects funding, careers and which knowledge is valued.", "Credentials in a field decide whom people trust; misrepresentation harms them." ], "affected_parties": [ "Students", "Researchers", "Employers and the public" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "Nobody owns a field; academic communities and accreditation bodies shape it.", "master_systems": [ "Education classification systems" ] }, "visual_identification": [ "University departments, degrees, journals and conferences devoted to a subject.", "Codes in education or research classification schemes." ], "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Narrow boundaries can block interdisciplinary work.", "False credentials in a field mislead people who rely on expertise." ], "standards_and_regulation": [ "International Standard Classification of Education: Fields of Education and Training, UNESCO." ], "what_it_is_for": [ "Fields of study organize teaching, research, professional specialization and collections of knowledge.", "They are used to classify courses, publications, expertise and research funding.", "Their boundaries can vary between institutions and change as questions and methods develop." ] }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q1047113: field of study", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1047113", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-de", "title": "Wikipedia (de): Fachgebiet", "url": "https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fachgebiet", "url_status": "live", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "intellectual-scope", "name": "Intellectual scope", "description": "What the field studies and what makes its questions cohere.", "rationale": "A field must be recognisable through its domain of inquiry rather than through its label alone.", "layers": [ { "id": "subject-and-problems", "name": "Subject and problems", "description": "The objects, phenomena and recurring problems included in the field.", "findings": [ { "id": "inquiry-domain", "name": "Inquiry domain", "description": "Record an attributed account of the field's subject matter and recurring question families.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which objects, phenomena or problem families does this field claim to investigate?", "kind": "definition", "id": "inquiry-domain-q01" }, { "text": "Which defining handbooks, reviews or community statements support this account of its scope?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "inquiry-domain-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "basis-of-coherence", "name": "Basis of coherence", "description": "The organising principle that connects otherwise separate investigations.", "findings": [ { "id": "field-forming-principle", "name": "Field-forming principle", "description": "Identify whether shared subject matter, problems, methods, applications or perspectives organise the field.", "questions": [ { "text": "What makes these investigations parts of one field rather than an incidental collection of topics?", "kind": "definition", "id": "field-forming-principle-q01" }, { "text": "Which apparently related topics fall outside that organising principle, and under whose convention?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "field-forming-principle-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "inquiry-and-warrant", "name": "Inquiry and warrant", "description": "How the field investigates questions and evaluates proposed knowledge.", "rationale": "Subject overlap alone cannot establish whether a question or method fits a field's inquiry practices.", "layers": [ { "id": "methodological-repertoire", "name": "Methodological repertoire", "description": "Methods used within the field and the contexts in which they apply.", "findings": [ { "id": "method-fit", "name": "Method fit", "description": "Record characteristic methods, their purposes and variation across the field without assuming methodological uniformity.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which methods are characteristic, optional or contested, and in which subfields or traditions?", "kind": "definition", "id": "method-fit-q01" }, { "text": "What features of a proposed research question would justify using one of these methods?", "kind": "action", "id": "method-fit-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "standards-of-warrant", "name": "Standards of warrant", "description": "The grounds on which claims are accepted, challenged or left unresolved.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-and-evaluation", "name": "Evidence and evaluation", "description": "Describe applicable forms of evidence and evaluation criteria with attribution to the relevant inquiry tradition.", "questions": [ { "text": "What counts as an adequate argument, observation, proof, interpretation or other warrant in the relevant part of this field?", "kind": "definition", "id": "evidence-and-evaluation-q01" }, { "text": "Where do internal traditions disagree about acceptable evidence or standards of evaluation?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "evidence-and-evaluation-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "boundaries-and-classification", "name": "Boundaries and classification", "description": "The field's relationships to other fields and its placement in explicit classification systems.", "rationale": "Field boundaries depend on conventions, and administrative classifications may organise knowledge differently from research communities.", "layers": [ { "id": "neighbouring-fields", "name": "Neighbouring fields", "description": "Broader, narrower and overlapping domains and the basis for distinguishing them.", "findings": [ { "id": "relationship-basis", "name": "Relationship basis", "description": "Qualify each relationship by whether it concerns subject coverage, methods, intellectual history or institutional grouping.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which fields contain, overlap with or contribute methods to this field, and what supports each relationship?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "relationship-basis-q01" }, { "text": "Does a proposed narrower label denote an existing registry entry, an internal specialism or an unsupported split?", "kind": "action", "id": "relationship-basis-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "scheme-specific-placement", "name": "Scheme-specific placement", "description": "Classification assignments and crosswalks with explicit scheme and edition context.", "findings": [ { "id": "classification-mapping", "name": "Classification mapping", "description": "Record verified codes and distinguish exact, broader, narrower and overlapping mappings.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which named schemes and editions classify this field, and what exact headings and codes do they use?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "classification-mapping-q01" }, { "text": "Does each heading cover the whole field, only part of it or a wider grouping?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "classification-mapping-q02" }, { "text": "Which mapping is appropriate for the present task: organising literature, education, research activity or another stated purpose?", "kind": "action", "id": "classification-mapping-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "recognition-and-reproduction", "name": "Recognition and reproduction", "description": "Evidence that communities recognise and sustain the field through inquiry, communication and learning.", "rationale": "Recognition helps distinguish a continuing field from a temporary label, while allowing fields that lack formal institutions.", "layers": [ { "id": "community-recognition", "name": "Community recognition", "description": "How scholarly and other relevant knowledge communities identify the field.", "findings": [ { "id": "recognition-evidence", "name": "Recognition evidence", "description": "Link community self-descriptions, learned societies, publication venues or comparable evidence to the scope of recognition they support.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which communities explicitly recognise this field, and through what statements or sustained practices?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "recognition-evidence-q01" }, { "text": "Is that recognition specific to a region, language, institution or intellectual tradition?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "recognition-evidence-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "knowledge-transmission", "name": "Knowledge transmission", "description": "How the field's questions, methods and accumulated knowledge are passed on.", "findings": [ { "id": "learning-and-continuity", "name": "Learning and continuity", "description": "Identify educational and other transmission practices without equating the field with any one curriculum.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which curricula, handbooks, apprenticeships or other practices transmit the field's characteristic knowledge and methods?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "learning-and-continuity-q01" }, { "text": "Which parts of a programme or qualification represent this field, and which belong to neighbouring fields or occupational preparation?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "learning-and-continuity-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "historical-change-and-assessment", "name": "Historical change and assessment", "description": "Changes in field identity and the evidence needed to judge its present condition.", "rationale": "An agent must distinguish changing terminology, intellectual reorganisation and weak documentation before updating field relationships or status.", "layers": [ { "id": "identity-through-change", "name": "Identity through change", "description": "Continuity and discontinuity across names, scope changes and reorganisations.", "findings": [ { "id": "continuity-assessment", "name": "Continuity assessment", "description": "Record competing accounts of emergence, renaming, branching and merger with their temporal context.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence connects earlier and current uses of the field's name, subject scope and inquiry practices?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "continuity-assessment-q01" }, { "text": "Does the proposed change preserve one field's identity or indicate a distinct field, and whose account supports that judgment?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "continuity-assessment-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "present-condition", "name": "Present condition", "description": "Evidence of continuing inquiry, transmission and unresolved identity disputes.", "findings": [ { "id": "condition-and-decision", "name": "Condition and decision", "description": "Assess the field within a defined period and context, separating evidence of activity from judgments of intellectual merit.", "questions": [ { "text": "Over what period and coverage do publications, research gatherings, learning activity or other indicators support a judgment of continuity?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "condition-and-decision-q01" }, { "text": "Which missing evidence or unresolved boundary dispute requires an agent to qualify a classification or defer a registry change?", "kind": "action", "id": "condition-and-decision-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": [ "No sense is recorded; this describes the general category, not a particular discipline or a student's declared major.", "The listed kinds overlap and do not constitute a universal taxonomy.", "Classification versions and mappings should be checked before assigning codes; no single code identifies the general concept across these schemes." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of field of study 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": [ "Disciplinary field", "Subdisciplinary field", "Interdisciplinary field", "Multidisciplinary field" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of field of study this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-identifiers", "name": "Identifiers and schemes", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ { "scheme": "ISCED Fields of Education and Training 2013 (ISCED-F 2013)", "value_or_pattern": "Two-digit broad, three-digit narrow, and four-digit detailed field codes", "note": "UNESCO classification of education and training fields; it does not identify every research specialty." }, { "scheme": "Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP)", "value_or_pattern": "Hierarchical codes with detailed entries formatted as NN.NNNN", "note": "Maintained by the US National Center for Education Statistics for instructional programs." }, { "scheme": "OECD Fields of Research and Development (FORD)", "value_or_pattern": "Hierarchical major-field and subfield codes", "note": "Classifies research and development by field; its categories need not match educational classifications." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-identifiers-q01", "text": "Which of these identifiers and schemes hold for the sense of field of study this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation", "name": "Standards and regulation", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "UNESCO Institute for Statistics: ISCED-F 2013 for classifying fields of education and training.", "OECD: Frascati Manual 2015, including classification of research and development by field.", "US National Center for Education Statistics: Classification of Instructional Programs for reporting instructional programs." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation-q01", "text": "Which of these standards and regulation hold for the sense of field of study 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": [ "Organizing curricula, degree programs, and areas of specialization.", "Classifying research projects, funding portfolios, and research expenditure.", "Assigning expertise for peer review and research assessment.", "Indexing scholarship and supporting subject-based discovery.", "Comparing educational participation and qualifications across institutions or countries." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of field of study this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards", "name": "Failure modes and hazards", "description": "Recalled without web access and unsourced; every item is a lead to verify.", "evidence": [ "Treating classification boundaries as natural or permanent divisions of knowledge.", "Conflating a field with its practitioners, publications, department, or degree program.", "Assigning interdisciplinary work to a single category that obscures important contributions.", "Comparing statistics across classification schemes or versions without checking their mappings.", "Treating similarly named fields as equivalent despite differences in scope or methods." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of field of study 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": [ "National education and research reporting systems use different classifications and levels of detail.", "Universities and national academic traditions may locate the same subject in different faculties or disciplines.", "Translated field names may conceal differences in intellectual scope and institutional recognition." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of field of study 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": "Academic discipline", "difference": "A discipline generally implies an established intellectual and institutional tradition; a field of study can also be an interdisciplinary or emerging area." }, { "name": "Research topic", "difference": "A topic specifies a particular subject or problem; a field organizes a broader area of inquiry, though the boundary is conventional." }, { "name": "Degree program", "difference": "A degree program is an institution's curriculum leading to an award; multiple programs can teach the same field." }, { "name": "Academic department", "difference": "A department is an organizational unit that may cover one or several fields." }, { "name": "Scholarly literature", "difference": "Literature consists of recorded scholarly works; a field is the area of inquiry those works address." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of field of study this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Does this registry entry intend field of study to include informal and emerging domains of inquiry, or only recognised academic fields?", "Does an existing world model already cover this concept and therefore need to serve as its single publication?", "Which sourced conventions best distinguish field, discipline, subdiscipline and research area without imposing a universal hierarchy?", "Which classification schemes should guide particular uses, and how should incompatible placements be preserved?", "What evidence is sufficient to assess continuity for fields poorly represented in formal institutions, indexed literature or dominant-language sources?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 18, "questions": 29 } }