181 lines
5.4 KiB
Markdown
181 lines
5.4 KiB
Markdown
# Notebook Operating Model
|
|
|
|
This note records what the Foundation Notebook pilot changed about how
|
|
Didactopus should be understood.
|
|
|
|
The main conclusion is that the Notebook is not just another output format. It
|
|
is the durable knowledge layer between raw source-grounding work and
|
|
learner-facing products.
|
|
|
|
Didactopus should therefore operate with three layers:
|
|
|
|
1. source-grounded substrate
|
|
2. Notebook knowledge layer
|
|
3. learner-facing and workbench-facing products derived from that layer
|
|
|
|
## 1. Source-grounded substrate
|
|
|
|
This is the ingestion and review layer:
|
|
|
|
- `doclift`
|
|
- Wolfe-guided source discovery and local-corpus selection
|
|
- `GroundRecall`
|
|
- `CiteGeist`
|
|
|
|
Its job is not only to collect sources, but to preserve enough structure to
|
|
support later explanation, review, and public accountability.
|
|
|
|
The pilot showed that this layer needs more than raw topic labels and extracted
|
|
claims. It needs to preserve:
|
|
|
|
- source role
|
|
- concept neighborhood hints
|
|
- terminology
|
|
- scope conditions
|
|
- contrasts
|
|
- quote candidates
|
|
- bibliographic support
|
|
|
|
## 2. Notebook knowledge layer
|
|
|
|
The Notebook is the durable concept-network representation.
|
|
|
|
It should be treated as primary for knowledge organization, but supplemental
|
|
relative to the final learner workflow. Learners do not necessarily consume the
|
|
Notebook directly as their main experience, but Didactopus should derive its
|
|
best learner products from it.
|
|
|
|
The pilot showed that the Notebook should be:
|
|
|
|
- hub-first rather than topic-label-first
|
|
- neighborhood-oriented rather than article-oriented
|
|
- distinction-aware rather than summary-only
|
|
- source-grounded but normally paraphrastic in public rendering
|
|
|
|
The broadest useful hub in the pilot was not a narrow topic like
|
|
`population biology`, but a broader explanatory center such as
|
|
`Evolutionary Dynamics of Populations`.
|
|
|
|
That shift matters. The Notebook should preserve explanatory structure such as:
|
|
|
|
- populations and variation
|
|
- inheritance and mutation
|
|
- selection and drift
|
|
- adaptation and accommodation
|
|
- organism-environment interaction
|
|
- common descent and divergence
|
|
|
|
## 3. Derived products
|
|
|
|
Didactopus should derive multiple product types from the same Notebook layer:
|
|
|
|
- learner workbench views
|
|
- guided lessons and learning paths
|
|
- mentor/practice/evaluator session grounding
|
|
- review workbench artifacts
|
|
- public Notebook pages
|
|
- argumentation/workbench bundles
|
|
|
|
These products should not collapse into one another.
|
|
|
|
Different renderings need different rules:
|
|
|
|
- Notebook rendering:
|
|
preserve concept structure, source trails, and review context
|
|
- Workbench rendering:
|
|
surface definitions, caveats, distinctions, and quote candidates
|
|
- Public exposition:
|
|
stay paraphrastic by default, mark all quotations, and show source citation
|
|
|
|
## Required extraction classes
|
|
|
|
The pilot made it clear that Didactopus needs more than “claim extraction”.
|
|
|
|
The durable extraction classes should include:
|
|
|
|
- explanatory claims
|
|
- definitions
|
|
- qualifications
|
|
- constraints
|
|
- contrasts and distinctions
|
|
- quote candidates
|
|
- source-trail and bibliographic support
|
|
- learner-significance cues
|
|
|
|
The distinction layer is especially important for learning. Many concepts are
|
|
best learned not as isolated statements but as structured contrasts:
|
|
|
|
- `A vs B`
|
|
- `A does not imply B`
|
|
- `B can occur without A`
|
|
- `A is one mechanism among several`
|
|
|
|
For the evolution pilot, this includes distinctions such as:
|
|
|
|
- selection versus drift
|
|
- adaptation versus accommodation
|
|
- heredity versus epigenetic inheritance
|
|
- short-term response versus long-run evolutionary change
|
|
|
|
## Source-role weighting
|
|
|
|
The pilot also showed that not all sources do the same work.
|
|
|
|
Didactopus should preserve source-role weighting so later products can choose
|
|
better supporting material for the task at hand.
|
|
|
|
At minimum, sources should be classifiable as:
|
|
|
|
- overview
|
|
- mechanism
|
|
- nuance
|
|
- controversy
|
|
- argumentation
|
|
|
|
Short web captures were often good enough for overview and argumentation.
|
|
Wolfe-selected local textbook material was substantially better for nuance,
|
|
qualification, and constraint extraction.
|
|
|
|
That means source selection should not be treated as neutral. The system should
|
|
prefer different source roles for different downstream tasks.
|
|
|
|
## Secondary products are not accidental
|
|
|
|
Definitions, constraints, qualifications, and quote candidates should be
|
|
treated as first-class secondary products, not as incidental by-products of
|
|
review.
|
|
|
|
These secondary products matter because they support:
|
|
|
|
- explanation quality
|
|
- misconception prevention
|
|
- learner revision
|
|
- source-grounded argumentation workflows
|
|
- public accountability
|
|
|
|
The pilot showed that a strong Notebook/workbench flow depends heavily on these
|
|
secondary lanes.
|
|
|
|
## Citation and quotation policy
|
|
|
|
The public-facing rule is simple:
|
|
|
|
- quotes must stay marked and attributed
|
|
- public prose should normally be paraphrastic
|
|
- unmarked source wording is not acceptable in public Notebook exposition
|
|
|
|
This should remain explicit in both workbench and publication paths.
|
|
|
|
## Operational implications
|
|
|
|
Near-term Didactopus work should therefore prioritize:
|
|
|
|
1. Notebook-centered concept organization
|
|
2. first-class distinction modeling
|
|
3. source-role-aware retrieval and ranking
|
|
4. first-class secondary products
|
|
5. separate rendering contracts for Notebook, workbench, and public exposition
|
|
|
|
The notebook is not the only Didactopus output. It is the durable center that
|
|
lets the other outputs stay grounded, explainable, and pedagogically useful.
|