Conceptual Model Of An “Emotional” Domain
We are only concerned with textual data stored electronically. A
source is thus our generic unit of representation throughout the problem domain.
evidence is the exhaustive collection of all the
docs we need to consider, organized hierarchically as individual
Ultimately, it all comes down to working with text fragments, or
claims, with their various interconnected and even overlapping properties and attributes.
We formalize these and define:
|digitized content stored in a file
|type (e.g. pdf, jpg, email, text)
|a hierarchy of considered Sources
|paginated, flat textual Evidence
|name (date), genre, author, title, pages
|the “official-ness” of a Doc
|a specific location in a Doc
|doc, page, para(graph)
|a Placed relevant text fragment
|text, place, credibility
author of a
doc of implicitly related set of
claims can be a party, a lawyer or a judge, for example.
Accordingly, we define:
|an author of Docs of Claims
|a to be believed professional
|kind (of profession)
|a trusted Agent of an official agency
|agency (institution or ‘sworn self’)
claim can be grouped into
topics and attached to
narratives. Such groupings and assignments are done based on the semantic meaning of the claim, as well as of the context the claim belongs to.
|a relevant/dominant subject matter of Claims
|a thematically focused “slice” through Claims
claims are further categorized as follows.
The objective is to either compute a generalizing
credibility for the claim or to derive other reproducible conjectures, regarding the related claims.
|a generic grouping of Claim(s) along thematic dimensions
|a readily verifiable, undisputed Claim from an Authority
|a logical inference from Proofs guided by thematic Claims
|a broad-based, reinforcing Conjecture
|a narrow, fragmenting and thus weakening Conjecture
While a broad
reality is “simple”, as in hard to characterize any further, a narrow
dissent is much richer in “character”.
We break down
dissents into self-explanatory types, with increasing factors of their fragmenting effects. These are:
|seemingly unintentionally misinterpreted relevant claims
|neglected or refused to consider both claim and counterclaim
|reported relevant and damaging information in a careless manner
|neglected or refused to report in balanced/proportional manner
|neglected or refused to state apparent inconsistency or conflict
|neglected or refused to consider relevant and essential context
|neglected or refused to report disclosed relevant information
|reported relevant information in a suggestive and biased manner
A special type of claim is a
Its purpose is to directly contradict a
reality and thus to manipulate a subsequent
judgment. As the most important objects in modeling a lawsuit,
conflicts are at the center of our attention.
The ultimate goal of our modeling efforts is to arrive at a mechanism to extract a semantic “conflict graph” in a reproducible fashion.
|a Claim intended to fabricate/escalate bases for Judgments
|a false Claim caused by Agent as intentional perjury
|variant of a conflict aimed at reinforcing intended effect
|a thematic conjecture by Authority over inflated Conflicts
|a thematic pattern of conjectures by Authority
Once again, revealing, and even actively fabricating, conflicts is the objective of lawsuits.
We categorize conflicts along their increasing fragmenting effect on realities:
|emphasized inherent contradictions to confuse judgment
|intentionally concealed relevant truths to affect judgment
|intentionally emphasized relevant half-truths to affect judgment
|stated intentionally falsified relevant and crucial information
|stated relevant and threatening claims to force money or “fees”
The judgments of lawsuits represent the net effect of all claimed conflicts.
judgment relies predominantly on perhaps fabricated conflicts, or is simply prejudiced by them, while actively overruling realities, it causes
The types of judgments we consider in increasing
turmoil effect is as follows:
|selection and judgment of conflicts refuting an inflated Conflict
|selection and judgment of conflicts leading to clear contradiction
|selection and judgment of conflicts satisfying a prior narrative
|avoidance of relevant conflicts while protecting a prior narrative
|injection of disputable conjecture to reinforce a prior narrative
When considering multiple judgment claims, a pattern, or a trend, can possibly be established.
During processing, when our calculations support such “judicial” patterns,
We define the following
activism categories in increasing effect of their
|a pattern of excluding undesired realities
|a pattern of insinuating desired “realities”
|a pattern of deepening fabricated conflicts
|a pattern of re-interpreting realities
|a pattern of elevating desired “realities”
|a pattern of repeatedly causing suffering
|a pattern of repeatedly preying on the defenseless
|a pattern of reinforcing the repetition of unfairness
This blog introduced the most essential “framing” concepts of our model. A subsequent blog will define the precise analytical, or quantitatively measurable, properties of these elements.