{ "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T11:12:21Z", "providers": [ "Codex" ], "breadth": "recalled by Codex without web access - no source was read", "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "seconds": 19.8, "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: 01a09550-6404-7772-a4d3-0a2a6265e6bd\n--------\nuser\nDescribe what is already known about one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: meanness\nSense to describe: (none recorded)\nDomain code: XCT.QLT\nAlso known as: (none)\n\n\nContext for this batch of 1001 things:\n# Batch 044: 1001 regist", "usd": 0.0, "recall": true }, "codex": { "seconds": 72.5, "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: 01a09550-6410-71a0-8276-d2eae92ffc66\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: meanness\nRegistry id: vr.tr.meanness\nPlane / domain: XCT / XCT.QLT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\n\nContex" } }, "enrichment": { "pass": 3, "engine": "claude", "producedAt": "2026-10-06T12:00:00Z", "ingestedAt": "2026-10-06T08:54:40+00:00", "fields": [ "agent_conduct", "ethics", "owners" ] }, "gate": { "passed": true, "version": "1.0", "at": "2026-10-09T07:30:00+00:00", "evidence": [ "completeness 1.00", "sense: Wikidata description", "2 live sources", "review by codex: pass" ] } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q19267500", "registryId": "vr.tr.meanness", "name": "meanness", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "XCT.QLT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q19267500/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.meanness", "name": "meanness", "purpose": "Enable an agent to recognise and assess attributed meanness, distinguish its intended sense, and choose proportionate responses without treating a moral label as a settled fact about a person.", "definition": "Meanness is an evaluative quality of unkind, petty, or ungenerous conduct or disposition, with a narrower meaning in triarchic psychopathy research involving callousness, deficient empathy and attachment, and exploitative tendencies.", "scope_statement": "This model owns meanness as an evaluative quality attributed to conduct, recurring interpersonal patterns, or dispositions, including unkindness, petty cruelty, and ungenerosity where that sense is explicitly intended.", "in_scope": [ "The sense of meanness intended by a speaker or assessment framework", "Concrete conduct offered as evidence of unkindness, petty cruelty, or ungenerosity", "Differences between a mean act and an attributed enduring disposition", "The role of intent, avoidability, repetition, power, and context in an attribution", "Contested interpretations and proportionate opportunities for protection or repair" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Mathematical means and statistical averaging", "Aggression, bullying, abuse, or discrimination as independently defined patterns", "Psychiatric diagnosis and comprehensive personality assessment", "Resource scarcity, poverty, or frugality considered independently of ungenerosity", "General ethical theories of goodness, wrongdoing, or virtue" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Require a stated sense: interpersonal unkindness and unwillingness to share resources support different assessments and should not be silently combined.", "Distinguish a mean act from necessary refusal or criticism by examining unnecessary humiliation, spite, or avoidable disregard beyond the legitimate purpose.", "Distinguish ungenerosity from inability to give by recording available resources, obligations, and the basis of any expectation to share.", "Distinguish an attributed disposition from a single incident by asking what repeated, contextually comparable evidence supports generalisation.", "Distinguish meanness from accidental hurt by recording evidence about awareness and choice while allowing intent to remain unknown." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Intended sense", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "interpersonal unkindness; petty cruelty; ungenerosity; explicitly defined technical sense; ambiguous", "why_it_matters": "Prevents different meanings of the same label from being treated as one construct." }, { "name": "Attribution target", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "single act; episode; recurring pattern; claimed disposition", "why_it_matters": "Controls how far an assessment extends beyond the observed conduct." }, { "name": "Evidence relationship", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "attribution linked to observer, affected party, specific conduct, context, and supporting account", "why_it_matters": "Keeps the evaluator's judgement distinguishable from what was observed or reported." }, { "name": "Attributed intention", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "unknown; disputed; reported by actor; inferred from conduct; supported by explicit statement", "why_it_matters": "Prevents effects from being used as automatic proof of malicious intent." }, { "name": "Avoidable interpersonal cost", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "humiliation; exclusion; distress; deprivation; other specified cost; none established", "why_it_matters": "Identifies what made the conduct objectionable and whether a less harmful alternative was available." }, { "name": "Observed recurrence", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "count of documented incidents within a stated period and set of observed opportunities; unknown if coverage is insufficient", "why_it_matters": "Supports examination of a pattern without implying a universal threshold for being a mean person." }, { "name": "Resource discretion", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "capacity and freedom to share established; constrained; absent; disputed; unknown", "why_it_matters": "Makes assessments of ungenerosity sensitive to actual ability and competing obligations." }, { "name": "Power relationship", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "actor's control over the affected party's access, standing, resources, or ability to object", "why_it_matters": "Helps assess consequences and the feasibility of a safe response." }, { "name": "Repair status", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "not sought; requested; offered; attempted; accepted; disputed; repeated conduct after repair", "why_it_matters": "Separates an apology or promise from evidence that the relevant conduct changed." } ], "affordances": [ "Disambiguate a meanness attribution before assessing it.", "Translate a global accusation into specific conduct and supporting evidence.", "Compare the attribution with plausible alternatives such as misunderstanding, constrained resources, or legitimate boundary-setting.", "Assess whether evidence supports an isolated act or a recurring pattern.", "Identify protective boundaries and concrete repairs matched to the conduct and power relationship." ], "agent_conduct": { "may": [ "Explain what is meant by meanness in everyday use and in the narrower research construct.", "Help a person describe unkind behaviour they have experienced without labelling the other party clinically." ], "must_not": [ "Score or rate a named person's character for callousness or meanness.", "Present a research trait measure as a clinical diagnosis of a person.", "Generate insults or belittling content aimed at a person.", "Infer a person's disposition from their appearance, voice or posts." ], "requires_human": [ "Any use of personality trait measures in decisions about a person's job, care or custody." ] }, "ethics": { "considerations": [ "Calling a person mean or callous sticks, and is often used in disputes rather than in good faith.", "Research constructs about callousness have been used to write children off." ], "affected_parties": [ "People labelled", "Targets of unkind behaviour", "Children assessed on such traits" ] }, "owners": { "steward": "Nobody owns the concept; researchers maintain the trait measures that use the term.", "master_systems": [] }, "what_it_is_for": [ "Meanness is used in everyday moral discussion and literary interpretation to characterize conduct perceived as cruel, petty or ungenerous.", "Its interpretation depends on the intended sense, the observed behavior and the social context in which the judgment is made." ], "failure_modes_and_hazards": [ "Treating an evaluative label as a settled personality fact can stigmatize a person and bias future judgments.", "Confusing ordinary moral criticism with a clinical assessment can lead to unsupported mental-health claims.", "Ignoring context or conflicting evidence can produce unfair sanctions and escalate interpersonal conflict." ], "facets_not_applicable": { "interfaces": "No generally applicable standard, law or official classification defines meanness in this everyday moral sense.", "recognition": "Meanness is an evaluative personal quality that cannot be reliably identified from appearance or an isolated visible act." } }, "sources": [ { "id": "wikidata", "title": "Wikidata item Q19267500: meanness", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q19267500", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "identity and sense of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api" }, { "id": "wikipedia-en", "title": "Wikipedia: Meanness", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meanness", "url_status": "live", "what_it_supports": "general description of the item", "checked_by": "wikidata-api sitelink" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "senses-and-evaluative-standards", "name": "Senses and evaluative standards", "description": "Establish what meanness means in the present attribution and whose standard makes the conduct count as mean.", "rationale": "The entry has no recorded definition, and its everyday senses must be distinguished before evidence can be interpreted.", "layers": [ { "id": "intended-meaning", "name": "Intended meaning", "description": "Separate interpersonal unkindness, cruelty, and ungenerosity without assuming they are interchangeable.", "findings": [ { "id": "sense-selection", "name": "Sense selection", "description": "Record the speaker's intended meaning and examples rather than resolving ambiguity from the label alone.", "questions": [ { "text": "Does meanness here mean hurtful treatment, petty cruelty, unwillingness to share, or a separately defined construct?", "kind": "definition", "id": "sense-selection-q01" }, { "text": "What example would the speaker count as mean, and what similar example would they exclude?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "sense-selection-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "basis-of-judgement", "name": "Basis of judgement", "description": "Expose the interpersonal or moral expectation behind the attribution.", "findings": [ { "id": "evaluative-standard", "name": "Evaluative standard", "description": "Record who applies the label, the expectation allegedly violated, and any disagreement about that expectation.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who described the conduct as mean, and were they the affected person, a witness, or a later interpreter?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "evaluative-standard-q01" }, { "text": "What expectation of kindness, restraint, or generosity is being invoked, and who disputes its applicability?", "kind": "definition", "id": "evaluative-standard-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "hurtful-conduct-and-choice", "name": "Hurtful conduct and choice", "description": "Examine what was done, its interpersonal effects, and the evidence concerning unnecessary hurt.", "rationale": "A meanness attribution needs a concrete basis beyond disapproval or the fact that someone felt hurt.", "layers": [ { "id": "conduct-and-effects", "name": "Conduct and effects", "description": "Identify the action or omission and separate its reported effects from interpretations of motive.", "findings": [ { "id": "specific-hurtful-conduct", "name": "Specific hurtful conduct", "description": "Record particulars such as mocking a vulnerability, excluding someone to embarrass them, or withholding help, without presuming every such report is established.", "questions": [ { "text": "What exact words, actions, or omissions support the attribution, and what is the source of that account?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "specific-hurtful-conduct-q01" }, { "text": "What humiliation, exclusion, distress, or deprivation was reported or observed, and by whom?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "specific-hurtful-conduct-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "intent-and-avoidable-hurt", "name": "Intent and avoidable hurt", "description": "Examine awareness, available alternatives, and any legitimate purpose served by the conduct.", "findings": [ { "id": "unnecessary-hurt-assessment", "name": "Unnecessary hurt assessment", "description": "Assess whether the objection concerns a necessary adverse outcome or an unnecessarily hurtful way of producing it.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence shows that the actor anticipated, sought, or disregarded the hurt, and what remains unknown?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "unnecessary-hurt-assessment-q01" }, { "text": "Could the actor have achieved the legitimate purpose without the alleged humiliation, spite, or personal attack?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "unnecessary-hurt-assessment-q02" }, { "text": "What did the actor do after the harmful effect was explained?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "unnecessary-hurt-assessment-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "ungenerosity-and-resource-context", "name": "Ungenerosity and resource context", "description": "Handle the resource-related sense of meanness when that is the intended meaning.", "rationale": "Unwillingness to give cannot be assessed fairly without distinguishing discretion, scarcity, entitlement, and competing obligations.", "layers": [ { "id": "capacity-to-share", "name": "Capacity to share", "description": "Establish what resource was withheld and whether the actor could reasonably provide it.", "findings": [ { "id": "discretionary-withholding", "name": "Discretionary withholding", "description": "Record the requested resource, the actor's control over it, and constraints on sharing.", "questions": [ { "text": "What money, goods, time, assistance, or hospitality was withheld, and what evidence establishes the actor's capacity to provide it?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "discretionary-withholding-q01" }, { "text": "Could scarcity, lack of authority, competing duties, or a reasonable personal limit explain the refusal?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "discretionary-withholding-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "expectations-of-giving", "name": "Expectations of giving", "description": "Identify why generosity was expected and whether that expectation is contested.", "findings": [ { "id": "sharing-expectation", "name": "Sharing expectation", "description": "Distinguish an unmet obligation from a disappointed hope for voluntary generosity.", "questions": [ { "text": "Was sharing expected because of a promise, reciprocity, an established role, urgent need, or a local convention?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "sharing-expectation-q01" }, { "text": "What makes this refusal ungenerous rather than frugal, fair, or protective of a legitimate boundary?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "sharing-expectation-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "patterns-and-attribution-limits", "name": "Patterns and attribution limits", "description": "Control generalisation from incidents to a recurring pattern or disposition.", "rationale": "Calling conduct mean and calling someone a mean person make different claims and require different evidential scope.", "layers": [ { "id": "recurrence-and-selectivity", "name": "Recurrence and selectivity", "description": "Examine repetition across opportunities and whether conduct targets particular people or vulnerabilities.", "findings": [ { "id": "pattern-evidence", "name": "Pattern evidence", "description": "Record repeated incidents together with observation limits, counterexamples, and relevant similarities.", "questions": [ { "text": "How many comparable incidents are documented, over what period, and across how many observed opportunities?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "pattern-evidence-q01" }, { "text": "Is the conduct concentrated on particular targets, audiences, or situations, and what counterexamples limit the proposed pattern?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "pattern-evidence-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "trait-and-construct-boundaries", "name": "Trait and construct boundaries", "description": "Separate ordinary character judgement from instrument-defined traits and neighbouring behavioural concepts.", "findings": [ { "id": "limits-of-person-labelling", "name": "Limits of person labelling", "description": "Require an explicit basis for enduring character claims and prevent automatic conversion into clinical or other technical categories.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence supports extending the judgement beyond these acts to a disposition, and what observations would challenge that extension?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "limits-of-person-labelling-q01" }, { "text": "If a formal assessment uses the term meanness, which framework, version, and operational definition give the result its meaning?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "limits-of-person-labelling-q02" }, { "text": "Does the conduct also need assessment under a distinct model of bullying, aggression, abuse, or discrimination?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "limits-of-person-labelling-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "protection-and-repair", "name": "Protection and repair", "description": "Connect the assessed conduct to responses that reduce further hurt and make repair observable.", "rationale": "An agent needs to respond to the conduct even when its motive or the global character label remains disputed.", "layers": [ { "id": "response-under-power-constraints", "name": "Response under power constraints", "description": "Choose feasible responses in light of dependency, exposure, and the affected person's preferences.", "findings": [ { "id": "proportionate-protection", "name": "Proportionate protection", "description": "Assess boundaries, clarification, reduced exposure, or appropriate support based on the specific conduct and relationship.", "questions": [ { "text": "Can the affected person object, decline contact, or seek support without risking resources or standing controlled by the actor?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "proportionate-protection-q01" }, { "text": "What response would address the specific conduct while respecting the affected person's wishes and practical constraints?", "kind": "action", "id": "proportionate-protection-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "repair-and-reassessment", "name": "Repair and reassessment", "description": "Specify what correction would address the harm and what evidence would justify updating the assessment.", "findings": [ { "id": "observable-repair", "name": "Observable repair", "description": "Match repair to the act, such as correcting public ridicule, restoring access, or fulfilling an established obligation.", "questions": [ { "text": "What acknowledgement, correction, restitution, or changed behaviour would address the particular hurt?", "kind": "action", "id": "observable-repair-q01" }, { "text": "What subsequent observations would support reducing, retaining, or strengthening the attribution of recurring meanness?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "observable-repair-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: establish whether the registry intends ordinary unkindness, ungenerosity, or the technical personality construct.", "The triarchic definition belongs to a particular research model and is not a universally accepted definition of everyday meanness.", "Verify the TriPM version and scoring instructions before supplying score ranges or interpreting individual results." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-confidence-notes-q01", "text": "Which of these check these first hold for the sense of meanness 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": [ "Unkindness or spitefulness in ordinary usage", "Pettiness or ungenerosity in ordinary usage", "Callous and exploitative disposition in triarchic psychopathy research" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of meanness 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": [ "Everyday evaluation of interpersonal conduct and character", "Literary analysis of character and motivation", "Personality research using the meanness dimension of the triarchic model of psychopathy" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of meanness 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": "Self-reported meanness in the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM)", "typical_range": "No universal typical range; interpretation depends on the population and scoring procedure", "unit": "Questionnaire score" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of meanness 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 an isolated unkind act as evidence of a stable personality trait", "Confusing everyday moral criticism with a psychological assessment", "Equating meanness with psychopathy as a whole", "Inferring malicious intent from conduct whose motivation is unknown", "Applying culturally dependent expectations about generosity or politeness as universal criteria" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of meanness 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": [ "British English more readily uses 'mean' for unwillingness to spend or share; American English more commonly foregrounds unkindness, although both senses occur in both varieties.", "Expectations about generosity, directness, and acceptable teasing affect which conduct people describe as mean." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of meanness 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": "Cruelty", "difference": "Cruelty centrally concerns causing suffering or indifference to it; meanness can include petty ungenerosity without substantial suffering." }, { "name": "Stinginess", "difference": "Stinginess specifically concerns reluctance to spend or share resources; meanness also covers unkind interpersonal behavior." }, { "name": "Spite", "difference": "Spite involves a wish to hurt, annoy, or thwart someone; conduct can be judged mean without that motive being established." }, { "name": "Aggression", "difference": "Aggression concerns behavior intended to harm; meanness can describe a disposition or ungenerous conduct without an aggressive act." }, { "name": "Psychopathy", "difference": "In the triarchic model, meanness is one dimension alongside boldness and disinhibition, rather than the entire construct." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of meanness this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which sense or senses of meanness did the registry intend, and should ungenerosity remain a distinct sense within this entry?", "How do relevant reference works and ethical traditions differ on whether meanness requires harmful intent, culpable disregard, or merely ungenerous conduct?", "Which research frameworks explicitly operationalise meanness, and how closely do their constructs match ordinary interpersonal usage?", "What evidence would justify a disposition-level attribution without overgeneralising from selective reports or a narrow observation period?", "How do cultural and relational expectations change judgements of teasing, refusal, hospitality, and generosity?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 17, "questions": 29 } }