Topics — What a work is about. Nucleation holds whatever reading the owner files here, whether or not an Anthology of the SOTA topic could also hold it; instruction for ML practice belongs to the anthology (ADR-048). The words are seeded from the clusters the reading-time triage of 2026-09-25 found, and grow by decision.
Psychometrics — measuring minds — scales, reliability and validity, latent-variable and network models of psychological constructs, and model-based estimation of cognitive parameters (ADR-025).
6 of 371 QUESTION documents. Back to the full index.
| # | Title | Summary | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| QUESTION-057 | Can the integration that marks a will-organization as the agent’s own be detected apart from the agent’s own avowal that her commitments are hers? | Filed in the fourth synthesis pass to give readings no question asked for a place in the argument. It bears on CLAIM-016 and QUESTION-011. THEORY-074 answers it in part; the body gives each one’s limit. Deferred with its line. | Deferred |
| QUESTION-075 | Which tasks and which receivers fix the human criterion against which a measure of communicative fidelity is validated? | Raised by CLAIM-244 and CLAIM-226 on 2026-10-10. Every central defeat condition used a task-free judgement by unnamed judges. An answer names a task family and a receiver population for each claim, and says how fidelity for one population bears on another (CLAIM-074). | Open |
| QUESTION-076 | Can readers judge footing and stance reliably and validly in the categories the designs use? | Raised by CLAIM-227 on 2026-10-10. The only footing judgement the record has made twice of the same texts, the analyst’s own labelling of four refrains, changed between A38 and A39 (CASE-012). An answer reports reliability between judges and between passes against a target fixed in advance, and validity on renderings built to differ only in the attributed speaker. Stage 0 of CASE-055 is the design. Goffman’s “Footing” (in LIT-780) is the construct’s source and is unread here. | Open |
| QUESTION-266 | Can felt valence be operationalized, for systems that report and systems that cannot, by three layers measured independently, an ordering serving as the negotiation’s potential in the system’s conflicts, a hedonic marker that does not depend on choice, and the system’s own model of its potential, and do the layers dissociate where the potential account and its rivals say they should? | Filed at the owner’s direction, 2026-10-23, after a survey of work near the record’s account of valence as ordering-potential (CLAIM-440) for ways to operationalize felt states. Three layers, each with existing measures: potential (a conflict record, estimated arbitration weights); a hedonic marker independent of choice (taste reactivity, judgement bias, reports of experienced utility); and the system’s model of its own potential (confidence and metacognition paradigms). The claims are tested where the layers come apart. | Open |
| QUESTION-268 | What record of an organization’s or an animal’s conduct shows that one ordering prevails in the negotiation among its perspectives, which conflicts it wins, for how long, and whether it returns after interruption, and does potential measured on conflicts actually won give the same verdicts as potential read as a disposition? | TERM-076 defines potential by Frijda’s three marks of control precedence: priority in conflicts, persistence and resumption after interruption. CLAIM-440 rests its consequences on potential, and each of its defeaters needs potential measured. This asks how, and whether the measured (actual) and the dispositional readings agree, which bears on the counterfactual eraser (THEORY-252). | Open |
| QUESTION-369 | What would show that an experience is a basic psychological need, something an organism’s functioning requires, rather than something that reliably raises reported well-being, when self-determination theory identifies needs by their effects on well-being and treats well-being as the presence of need satisfaction? | A3’s closing question in the exchange “Assess SDT Coverage” (2026-11-02), at the owner’s U3 (“how about the basic psychological needs stuff?”): “What evidence would establish that a psychological experience is a need … rather than simply something that reliably makes humans feel better?” It is the second time the record meets it. The first is NOTE-439’s “Interdefinition” limitation, which says “need” and “well-being” are “partly interdefined” in Deci and Ryan 2000, and the paper “does not show how to test a need claim without assuming the well-being measure”. A3 did not know the record had raised it. | Open |