Guide · explorable
The corpus is a specification
This body of work carries its claims and definitions as a checkable structure, not just prose. So you can do something you cannot do with a normal paper: negotiate the vocabulary before you read it. Bring a framework you already hold, diff it against the corpus, and see where you agree, where you collide on the same word, and where the corpus is doing something new. Then walk the graph it all hangs on.
Pick a framework you arrive with — or type your own terms — and the corpus answers, term by term: do we mean the same thing?
Why this is more than a citation chart. A normal bibliography knows
who cites whom. This substrate knows how: every edge is typed —
extends, tests, contradicts,
refines — and every paper declares the terms it owns,
imports, and refines. That is what lets you negotiate a
definition before reading a word of the argument. It is the corpus practising its own
thesis: knowledge carried as a specification you can check, not prose you must trust.
What it is not. This is a public, admission-filtered projection — it
shows the open corpus only, and the curated framework comparisons are illustrative
starting points, not a verdict on those frameworks. The full graph (claims, definitions,
integrity hashes) is generated from the
open corpus substrate.
Read the idea behind it:
Negotiate a Paper Before You Read It.
From illustration to method
The collision you find here is not a gimmick — it is the failure mode of reading across vocabularies. The word signal means one thing to an economist and another in this corpus; segment and cohort are not synonyms. Surfacing that before you read is the install-time check for knowledge work. For the researcher paths into the corpus, start from the Guide; the corpus graph itself is generated from the open substrate and is reproducible end to end.