How many processes underline category-based induction? Effect of conclusion specificity and cognitive ability

Two studies investigated participants' sensitivity to the amount and diversity of the evidence when reasoning inductively about categories. Both showed that participants are more sensitive to characteristics of the evidence for arguments with general rather than specific conclusions. Both showed an association between cognitive ability and sensitivity to these evidence characteristics, particularly when the conclusion category was general. These results suggest that a simple associative process may not be sufficient to capture some key phenomena of category-based induction. They also support the claim that the need to generate a superordinate category is a complicating factor in category-based reasoning and that adults' tendency to generate such categories while reasoning has been overestimated.

In conclusion

This paper will consider ‘the purpose and relevance, process and method, audience and effect of contemporary architectural research in Ireland’ through the lens of one ongoing project, first presented in the paper ‘Vinegar and Chips, Concrete and Linen’ at AIARG Conference in 2012.
The paper however will not reopen the subject of last year’s paper; rather it will deliver the conclusion that the author failed to deliver within the given time. The paper will thus cover ‘a discussion of the contexts of this research i.e. academic, practice-based, craft and commercial’, placing particular emphasis on how these contexts relate to one another and more particularly ‘architectural research’. It will briefly relate the academic discussions that have evolved from the work (digital crafting; feminist forms of practice and technology; design methodology), but will chiefly focus on the meaning and purpose of research; the development of a practice based research methodology; the myth, mist and missed opportunities of peer review and dissemination (including the disclosure of intellectual property); and the significance of funding.

Conclusion: patterns of non-territorial autonomy

This article seeks to generalise about the significance of non-territorial autonomy as a mechanism for the management of ethnic conflict on the basis of a set of case studies covering the Ottoman empire and its successor states, the Habsburg monarchy, the Jewish minorities of Europe, interwar Estonia, contemporary Belgium, and two indigenous peoples, the Sami in Norway and Maori in New Zealand. It begins by assessing the extent to which the spatial distribution of ethnonational communities determined the range of autonomy options available—whether these might be territorial or whether only non-territorial autonomy would be realistic. The article continues with an assessment of the significance of ‘autonomy’ in circumstances where the institutions with which it is associated enjoy a non-territorial rather than a territorial writ. It concludes by suggesting that in almost all cases where autonomy is extended to a minority within a state this is exercised on a territorial basis, and that in many cases of non-territorial autonomy, or national–cultural autonomy, the powers assumed by the ‘autonomous’ institutions are substantially symbolic. It argues that notwithstanding the limited empirical evidence for the existence of non-territorial autonomy, this device should not be written off at a normative level.