nucleation

TERM-039: measurement context, as the elicitation protocol that enters the response and not the situation

3 min read

Properties4
StatusActive
Tagscausality, psychometrics
Linepragmatic-transport
Used byCLAIM-127 — Conditioning on a communicative situation, intervening on it and intervening on what the interpreter is told are three different operations, so a framing intervention should index the empirical model, e_C^a = P(Y_C | do(a)), not enter its cover as one more context, CLAIM-341 — The loop that keeps a lucid agent's model in touch with what it models runs between judgement and observation: each judgement reshapes the observer whose later observations it then judges, and action on the world is not part of that loop, so active inference's action–perception cycle misplaces where the agent is active, CLAIM-336 — The pragmatic-transport and will-organization lines describe one model, an organization of operators that act on a shared interpretive state under a context while allocating one another's influence: a frame is the context under which operators act, a judgement is the response they yield, an action-generating regime is an operator or coalition, and a will-organization is the dynamics that allocates influence among them, CLAIM-450 — Three standards for a communicative distinction come apart: statistical distinguishability of an interpreter's response profiles, measured locally by the Fisher metric and never raised by a parameter-independent garbling; usability by a bounded receiver, which a transformation can raise; and pragmatic efficacy in the act; and where response models are singular, as Watanabe's theory treats, a missing response can come from an absent attempt or an unresponsive receiver alike, and only intervention or later dynamics separate them

Graph View

Definition

The conditions under which a judgement is elicited: which question is put to the interpreter, in what form and in what order. A125 §1 named it beside the situation and the intervention, as C ∈ ℳ: “‘The speaker is a friend’ can describe a communicative situation, while telling a reader that the speaker is a friend is an intervention. Asking the reader to rate friendliness introduces a measurement context.”

A129 §1 gave it a place in a structural model. It introduced “an interpreter state R, a measurement protocol C, and a judgment Y”, with

  • R′ = f_R(R, Z, I, ε_R), and
  • Y = f_Y(R′, Z, C, ε_Y).

Here Z is the communicative situation and I the framing information. C enters the equation for the judgement and not the update of the interpreter’s state. In A129 §5’s system it indexes the cover ℳ, and the empirical law in context C under intervention a is e_C^a = P(Y_C | do(a)) (CLAIM-127).

A151 §3 restates the three-way split: “A speaker actually being a friend, a reader being told the speaker is a friend, and a reader being asked whether the speaker sounds friendly are not equivalent manipulations.” A203 §15 and A218 Ch10.1 restate it again.

What it is not

  • Not TERM-031, despite TERM-031’s title. TERM-031 is A24’s situation tuple C = (u, s, a, k, g), an index on judgement distributions, and TERM-030 superseded it. A125’s table misread TERM-031 as “The conditions under which particular observations or judgments are obtained”, which is this sense.
  • Not TERM-030, the configuration of the situation itself.
  • Not, or not obviously, a framing intervention (TERM-018). Whether eliciting a judgement is also an intervention is open, and the exchange answers it both ways. A35 §6, quoted in TERM-018: “forcing a participant to make an explicit judgment is itself an intervention.” A39 §3.2: “Asking a reader to consider an utterance as affectionate is another intervention.” A125 §1 goes the other way, and A129’s graph gives C an arrow into Y only, never into f_R.

The answer decides where signalling in elicited data would come from: from C’s direct influence on Y, or from a change of state carried forward to the next judgement (CLAIM-127, “Two routes to signalling”). Sequential designs, where one judgement is elicited before another, separate the two readings. Under the first, an earlier question cannot change a later judgement, because it never reaches the interpreter’s state. Under the second it can, because it changes the state the later judgement is drawn from.

Backlinks