heartlogic-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Heartlogic-dev] OHL v2 alpha test


From: Joshua N Pritikin
Subject: RE: [Heartlogic-dev] OHL v2 alpha test
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:17:46 +0530

On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 01:00 -0600, William L. Jarrold wrote:
> Darn, I think I am stuck in power outage time again.  I guess 12pm IST is
> 12am CST perhaps?
> 
> Well, I think it is most efficient if I reply to your msgs when I have had 
> a chance to e.g. try the levels once the power it back on.  My day is 
> chock full tomorrow so alas it will have to wait until Thurs.  Ug.

Gosh, feedback within 2 or 3 days?  I'm acclimated to waiting 1-2 months
to hear back from you.  ;-)

> Also, when I messed around with it yesterday I could not make any sense of
> what the stats meant.  E.g. N did not seem to correspond to the number of 
> replies I had done and M did not seem to be a mean and S (or I forget what 
> the letter or abbrev was) did not seem to correspond to an sdev.  Perhaps 
> this is just one of those buggy things you have not gotten around to
> fixing yet.

No, you guessed correctly.  I am using the abbreviations according the
APA Publication Manual.  What perhaps isn't obvious is that the samples
include everyone who has rated the particular construal, not just you.

> Anyway, I spoke to Peter and he is not too concerned with total and 
> complete alignment with CLib.
> 
> I think the main task facing me is to come up with a set of test cases 
> that go beyond the dissertation.  E.g. Tracy wants a banana.  Tracy gets a
> banana/apple/strawberry/piece of coal.  Then modify the model to handle 
> them all.

OK

> Another task might be to simply get you all the surveys from the 
> dissertation.  Ug.  This has been on the list forever.

Why?  I believe you already sent me one survey.  I diligently copied
everything for OHL v1.  For OHL v2, there are a few changes:

1. There are a few minor changes in wording.

2. The reason and the emotion are rated separately, not together.  Why?
Because I believe the emotion is dependent on the reason.  Hence, if the
reason is unbelievable then there is no point in rating the emotion.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]