{
  "title": "From sources to accountable claims — Research & questions",
  "text": "MODAVIS (2026). From sources to accountable claims — Research & questions. Research notebooks, September 2026 · expanded edition. https://modavis.org/editions/2026-09-r3/research/method/",
  "bibtex": "@misc{modavis_research_method_2026_09_r3,\n  author = {{MODAVIS}},\n  title = {From sources to accountable claims — Research & questions},\n  year = {2026},\n  month = {09},\n  version = {2026-09-r3},\n  url = {https://modavis.org/editions/2026-09-r3/research/method/},\n  note = {Content SHA-256: 97c95b833c63cb1c00755ae9e8f83f8e5c3296a45465729b64a90c34b5593ce0}\n}",
  "url": "https://modavis.org/editions/2026-09-r3/research/method/",
  "sha256": "97c95b833c63cb1c00755ae9e8f83f8e5c3296a45465729b64a90c34b5593ce0",
  "edition": "2026-09-r3",
  "date": "2026-09-26",
  "canonicalPayload": "{\"book\":{\"number\":\"02\",\"slug\":\"research\",\"title\":\"Research & questions\"},\"chapter\":{\"blocks\":[{\"text\":\"A source may describe an instrument at a particular time, use a historical name, or disagree with another account. The research task is to retain that context while creating useful relationships and views.\",\"type\":\"p\"},{\"id\":\"assertions\",\"text\":\"Keep sources and assertions distinct\",\"type\":\"heading\"},{\"text\":\"An attributed source account is evidence that a statement was made. It does not automatically establish that the statement is correct, current or equivalent to another statement. Reconciliation therefore requires explicit decisions and the possibility of leaving a relationship unresolved.\",\"type\":\"p\"},{\"id\":\"transformation\",\"text\":\"Document the transformation\",\"type\":\"heading\"},{\"text\":\"Decision records explain interpretative choices. Execution records identify the software, parameters and inputs used in a computational step. Together they make the route to a result inspectable and help distinguish a changed interpretation from a changed processing environment.\",\"type\":\"p\"},{\"text\":\"Matching bytes, reproducing a numerical result within a tolerance, and supporting the same historical interpretation are different achievements. A reproducibility statement needs to say which one has been tested.\",\"title\":\"Reproduction has a scope\",\"type\":\"note\"},{\"id\":\"worked-example\",\"text\":\"Worked example: two specification accounts\",\"type\":\"heading\"},{\"text\":\"Imagine two catalogues describing the same organ. One reports twelve stops; another lists fourteen. Before calculating a difference, ask what each source counts, which configuration it describes and whether it is independent of the other. The disagreement might reflect an alteration, a counting convention, a copied mistake or an unresolved identity. This example is illustrative, not a claim about a particular reference instrument.\",\"type\":\"p\"},{\"headers\":[\"Research step\",\"Record to preserve\"],\"rows\":[[\"Identify the account\",\"Source, fixed capture or edition, and the precise statement being used.\"],[\"Interpret its scope\",\"Instrument identity, configuration date, terminology and counting unit.\"],[\"Compare the evidence\",\"Agreement, conflict, dependency and alternative explanations.\"],[\"Make a decision\",\"Accepted, rejected or unresolved result, with reasons and accountable review.\"]],\"type\":\"table\"},{\"text\":\"The useful output is not merely a preferred number. It is an attributable statement whose relationship to the two accounts remains inspectable. If the evidence cannot distinguish the alternatives, leaving the result unresolved is an informative outcome. A later source can then change the interpretation without erasing the earlier evidence.\",\"type\":\"p\"},{\"id\":\"two-kinds-of-uncertainty\",\"text\":\"Separate a processing failure from an uncertain claim\",\"type\":\"heading\"},{\"text\":\"A parser may fail to recognize a date that is plainly present; that is a processing problem. A source may genuinely leave a date unspecified; that is a limitation of the evidence. Recording these separately prevents software improvements from being mistaken for new historical discoveries. It also helps direct review: correct a transformation when the source is clear, and seek additional evidence when it is not.\",\"type\":\"p\"},{\"text\":\"Repeating the same extraction successfully does not create another historical witness. Source dependence and computational reproducibility answer different questions.\",\"title\":\"Replayed evidence is not independent evidence\",\"type\":\"note\"},{\"items\":[{\"href\":\"/notebooks/software/architecture/\",\"label\":\"The data pipeline\"},{\"href\":\"/notebooks/ontologies/evidence/\",\"label\":\"Evidence in the ontology\"}],\"type\":\"links\"}],\"intro\":\"A research result should make it possible to trace the path back to its sources.\",\"slug\":\"method\",\"sources\":[{\"detail\":\"Musikinstrumente im virtuellen Raum, submitted 11 September 2026.\",\"href\":\"/notebooks/about/research/\",\"label\":\"About the doctoral research\"},{\"detail\":\"The published semantic model.\",\"href\":\"https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22126086\",\"label\":\"MODAVIS Ontology Network 0.1.0\"}],\"title\":\"From sources to accountable claims\"},\"date\":\"2026-09-26\",\"edition\":\"2026-09-r3\",\"figures\":{}}",
  "payload": {
    "edition": "2026-09-r3",
    "date": "2026-09-26",
    "book": {
      "slug": "research",
      "title": "Research & questions",
      "number": "02"
    },
    "chapter": {
      "slug": "method",
      "title": "From sources to accountable claims",
      "intro": "A research result should make it possible to trace the path back to its sources.",
      "blocks": [
        {
          "type": "p",
          "text": "A source may describe an instrument at a particular time, use a historical name, or disagree with another account. The research task is to retain that context while creating useful relationships and views."
        },
        {
          "type": "heading",
          "text": "Keep sources and assertions distinct",
          "id": "assertions"
        },
        {
          "type": "p",
          "text": "An attributed source account is evidence that a statement was made. It does not automatically establish that the statement is correct, current or equivalent to another statement. Reconciliation therefore requires explicit decisions and the possibility of leaving a relationship unresolved."
        },
        {
          "type": "heading",
          "text": "Document the transformation",
          "id": "transformation"
        },
        {
          "type": "p",
          "text": "Decision records explain interpretative choices. Execution records identify the software, parameters and inputs used in a computational step. Together they make the route to a result inspectable and help distinguish a changed interpretation from a changed processing environment."
        },
        {
          "type": "note",
          "title": "Reproduction has a scope",
          "text": "Matching bytes, reproducing a numerical result within a tolerance, and supporting the same historical interpretation are different achievements. A reproducibility statement needs to say which one has been tested."
        },
        {
          "type": "heading",
          "text": "Worked example: two specification accounts",
          "id": "worked-example"
        },
        {
          "type": "p",
          "text": "Imagine two catalogues describing the same organ. One reports twelve stops; another lists fourteen. Before calculating a difference, ask what each source counts, which configuration it describes and whether it is independent of the other. The disagreement might reflect an alteration, a counting convention, a copied mistake or an unresolved identity. This example is illustrative, not a claim about a particular reference instrument."
        },
        {
          "type": "table",
          "headers": [
            "Research step",
            "Record to preserve"
          ],
          "rows": [
            [
              "Identify the account",
              "Source, fixed capture or edition, and the precise statement being used."
            ],
            [
              "Interpret its scope",
              "Instrument identity, configuration date, terminology and counting unit."
            ],
            [
              "Compare the evidence",
              "Agreement, conflict, dependency and alternative explanations."
            ],
            [
              "Make a decision",
              "Accepted, rejected or unresolved result, with reasons and accountable review."
            ]
          ]
        },
        {
          "type": "p",
          "text": "The useful output is not merely a preferred number. It is an attributable statement whose relationship to the two accounts remains inspectable. If the evidence cannot distinguish the alternatives, leaving the result unresolved is an informative outcome. A later source can then change the interpretation without erasing the earlier evidence."
        },
        {
          "type": "heading",
          "text": "Separate a processing failure from an uncertain claim",
          "id": "two-kinds-of-uncertainty"
        },
        {
          "type": "p",
          "text": "A parser may fail to recognize a date that is plainly present; that is a processing problem. A source may genuinely leave a date unspecified; that is a limitation of the evidence. Recording these separately prevents software improvements from being mistaken for new historical discoveries. It also helps direct review: correct a transformation when the source is clear, and seek additional evidence when it is not."
        },
        {
          "type": "note",
          "title": "Replayed evidence is not independent evidence",
          "text": "Repeating the same extraction successfully does not create another historical witness. Source dependence and computational reproducibility answer different questions."
        },
        {
          "type": "links",
          "items": [
            {
              "label": "The data pipeline",
              "href": "/notebooks/software/architecture/"
            },
            {
              "label": "Evidence in the ontology",
              "href": "/notebooks/ontologies/evidence/"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "sources": [
        {
          "label": "About the doctoral research",
          "href": "/notebooks/about/research/",
          "detail": "Musikinstrumente im virtuellen Raum, submitted 11 September 2026."
        },
        {
          "label": "MODAVIS Ontology Network 0.1.0",
          "href": "https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22126086",
          "detail": "The published semantic model."
        }
      ]
    },
    "figures": {}
  }
}