Authors:
Stanislav A.Kudzh,Victor Ya. Tsvetkov,DOI NO:
https://doi.org/10.26782/jmcms.spl.10/2020.06.00047Keywords:
Comparative analysis,dyad,triad,triadic model,comparability relation,object comparison,attributive comparison,nomothetic method,ideographic method,Abstract
The present study of comparison methods based on the triadic model introduces the following concepts: the relation of comparability and the relation of comparison, and object comparison and attributive comparison. The difference between active and passive qualitative comparison is shown, two triadic models of passive and active comparison and models for comparing two and three objects are described. Triadic comparison models are proposed as an alternative to dyadic comparison models. Comparison allows finding the common and the different; this approach is proposed for the analysis of the nomothetic and ideographic method of obtaining knowledge. The nomothetic method identifies and evaluates the general, while the ideographic method searches for unique in parameters and in combinations of parameters. Triadic comparison is used in systems and methods of argumentation, as well as in the analysis of consistency/inconsistency.Refference:
I. AltafS., Aslam.M.Paired comparison analysis of the van Baarenmodel using Bayesian approach with noninformativeprior.Pakistan Journal of Statistics and Operation Research 8(2) (2012) 259{270.
II. AmooreJ. E., VenstromD Correlations between stereochemical assessments and organoleptic analysis of odorous compounds. Olfaction and Taste (2016) 3{17.
III. BarnesJ., KlingerR. Embedding projection for targeted cross-lingual sentiment: model comparisons and a real-world study. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 66 (2019) 691{742. doi.org/10.1613/jair.1.11561
IV. Castro-SchiloL., FerrerE.Comparison of nomothetic versus idiographic-oriented methods for making predictions about distal outcomes from time series data. Multivariate Behavioral Research 48(2) (2013) 175{207.
V. De BonaG.et al. Classifying inconsistency measures using graphs. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 66 (2019) 937{987.
VI. FideliR. La comparazione. Milano: Angeli, 1998.
VII. GordonT. F., PrakkenH., WaltonD. The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence 10(15) (2007) 875{896.
VIII. GrenzS.J. The social god and the relational self: A Triad theology of the imago Dei. Westminster: John Knox Press, 2001.
IX. HermansH.J. M.On the integration of nomothetic and idiographic research methods in the study of personal meaning.Journal of Personality 56(4) (1988) 785{812.
X. JamiesonK. G., NowakR. Active ranking using pairwise comparisons.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2011) 2240{2248.
XI. JongsmaC.Poythress’s triad logic: a review essay. Pro Rege 42(4) (2014) 6{15.
XII. KärkkäinenV.M. Trinity and Religious Pluralism: The Doctrine of the Trinity in Christian Theology of Religions. London: Routledge, 2017.
XIII. KudzhS. A., TsvetkovV.Ya. Triadic systems. Russian Technology Magazine 7(6) (2019) 74{882.
XIV. NelsonK.E.Some observations from the perspective of the rare event cognitive comparison theory of language acquisition.Children’s Language 6 (1987) 289{331.
XV. NiskanenA., WallnerJ., JärvisaloM.Synthesizing argumentation frameworks from examples. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 66 (2019) 503{554.
XVI. PührerJ.Realizability of three-valued semantics for abstract dialectical frameworks.Artificial Intelligence 278 (2020) 103{198.
XVII. SwansonG.Frameworks for comparative research: structural anthropology and the theory of action. In: Vallier, Ivan (Ed.). Comparative methods in sociology: essays on trends and applications.Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971 141{202.
XVIII. TsvetkovV.Ya.Worldview model as the result of education.World Applied Sciences Journal 31(2) (2014) 211{215.
XIX. TsvetkovV. Ya. Logical analysis and variable scales. Slavic Forum 4(22) (2018) 103{109.
XX. Wang S. et al. Transit traffic analysis zone delineating method based on Thiessen polygon. Sustainability 6(4) (2014) 1821{1832.