Dr. Smith's review of Terminology section

[samm82]

Other than #182, which I think should be done as part of #169 and the minor changes to this section reviewed then, the Terminology section is ready for review! As always, let me know if you have any questions!

Sam-Ch2-Terminology-v2.pdf

[samm82]

In particular, do you think the discussion about explicitness means that I should describe the methodology for identifying implicit information in #143 more "algorithmically", perhaps using a flowchart, to show that it is "based on the text of the sources"?

[smiths]

My feedback is attached. My current impression is that you don't need to add a flowchart to explain how your categorized explicitness. We can only go so far in specifying an algorithm for determining explicitness. In the end, it relies on a human being to interpret the situation. In the end, you have a binary classification, right? It is either explicit, or it is not. Leaving this classification to human judgement feels reasonably repeatable with two different humans. 😄 You should include human judgment in your threats to validity.

Sam-Ch2-Terminology-v2-Fdbck.pdf