On Tue, 2005-04-12 at 00:27 -0500, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> > OHL v2 will have three activities:
> > 1. Rating the believability of goal status (Goal, Anti-goal, NoGoal) of
> > various participants. This corresponds to level 'g'.
> Can you expand #1 ever so slightly. E.g. a one or two paragraph version.
> Shoot I know we talked about this, but we talked about many things.
> Is there a hypothesis? What is it?
Without going too deep, the hypothesis is that a pair of goal statuses
(same topic, same mindreader, different appraisers) characterize the
situation in an affectively meaningful way. We can take this hypothesis
in lots different directions.
> But basically, I think I am game for trying out a mixture of different
> studies. We'll need to get one or two or maybe three pretty well nailed
Are you hinting at a tree or flow-chart style extension of WLJ 2003? If
so, sounds good.
> Then we can publicize and get many respondants.
Part of my purpose with this email is to try to narrow down on the
minimum set of things we need to get ready.
Can you propose a specific list of things you want ready before we go
live? It seems like your list is longer than mine.
> There may be a way of replicating only a portion of my dissertation so as
> not to require so many subjects. After I analyze the data collected so
> far, I can ask statistical services consulting at UT about this.
If you are an American then support http://fairtax.org
(Permanently replace 50,000+ pages of tax law with about 200 pages.)
Heartlogic-dev mailing list