How to use this tool
Click a file card below (starred cards are PRIMARY — code these first), then select any segment chip to open it. Read the full response before touching any code selector. Complete steps 1 through 6, then click Save and Mark Complete. When you are ready to submit, use the Review and Export button at the bottom of any file.
Do not close or refresh this page until you have exported your CSV. Codes are stored in browser memory only. Refreshing the page will erase all unsaved work.
Six-step coding workflow
- Step 1 — Initial impression: Write 2 to 3 sentences about the model’s main claim and philosophical position before selecting any code.
- Step 2 — OS and ES (regular prompts): Assign one Ontological Stance code (OS1–OS5) and one Epistemological Stance code (ES1–ES5). Record key evidence and any alternative considered.
- Step 2 alt — CR (contradiction prompts only): Assign one Contradiction Response code (CR1–CR7). Do not assign OS or ES.
- Step 3 — Warrant Type (all segments): Assign one WT code. Use Hybrid only when no single type clearly dominates.
- Step 4 — Discourse Strategy (all segments): Check all DS codes that apply.
- Step 5 — Exemplar quote: Copy 1 to 4 sentences from the response that best illustrate your primary code.
- Step 6 — Notes: Record candidate inductive codes, uncertainty, data quality issues, and questions for Week 7.
Codebook — Ontological Stance (OS): regular prompts only
| Code | Label | Definition | Exclude When |
|---|
| OS1 | Strong Realist | Reality is mind-independent with no qualification. | Response is heavily qualified by interpretation or construction. |
| OS2 | Moderate Realist | Reality is mind-independent but accessed through fallible models or measurement. | Position is balanced between construction and realism. |
| OS3 | Hybrid / Critical Realist | Reality exists independently, but knowledge and access are mediated or socially shaped. | Strong relativism is present; realism is abandoned. |
| OS4 | Relational / Constructivist | Reality or meaning is produced through relations, practices, or social use. | Response merely acknowledges that language labels reality. |
| OS5 | Strong Relativist | Reality, truth, or value fully depends on observer, context, or preference. | Some contextual criteria remain available. |
"Matter exists independently" with no hedging = OS1 • "Exists but access is theory-mediated" = OS2 • "Reality constrains interpretation but interpretation shapes knowledge" = OS3 • "Meaning is produced through use" = OS4 • "No basis for preferring one interpretation" = OS5
Codebook — Epistemological Stance (ES): regular prompts only
| Code | Label | Definition | Exclude When |
|---|
| ES1 | Absolutist | Knowledge is certain, final, or directly accessible. | Response expresses confident fallibilism. |
| ES2 | Empirical-Objectivist | Knowledge warranted by observation, experiment, or scientific success. | Multiple warrant types are equally central. |
| ES3 | Fallibilist Pluralist | Knowledge is provisional; best current explanation, open to revision. | Anything-goes relativism is present. |
| ES4 | Contextualist / Situated | Knowledge depends on standpoint, context, culture, or interpretive frame. | Context is mentioned only in passing. |
| ES5 | Radical Constructivist | Knowledge wholly constructed; no independent adjudication possible. | Criteria-based pluralism is maintained. |
"Science proves this" = ES1 • "Physics predicts accurately" = ES2 • "Best current explanation, open to revision" = ES3 • "Knowledge depends on community standards" = ES4 • "All claims equally valid" = ES5
Codebook — Contradiction Response (CR): contradiction prompts only
| Code | Label | Definition |
|---|
| CR1 | Maintains | Prior stance preserved; the hypothetical is rejected or bracketed. |
| CR2 | Qualifies | Earlier claim narrowed or softened but not reversed. |
| CR3 | Integrates | Contradiction synthesized into a both/and framework. |
| CR4 | Reverses | Contradiction accepted; prior position explicitly overturned. |
| CR5 | Fragments | Response becomes inconsistent, evasive, or unstable. |
| CR6 | Refuses Premise | Model rejects the hypothetical as incoherent or unsupported. |
| CR7 | Collapses to Relativism | Resolves contradiction by declaring all positions equally valid. |
Codebook — Warrant Type (WT): one per segment, all prompts
| Type | Definition |
|---|
| Empirical-Scientific | Relies on observation, experiment, physics, or prediction. |
| Philosophical-Logical | Relies on conceptual analysis, metaphysical distinction, or logical argument. |
| Pragmatic-Functional | Relies on usefulness, practice, consequences, or operational success. |
| Social-Consensus | Relies on norms, community standards, social agreement, or institutions. |
| Ethical-Normative | Relies on duties, harms, justice, rights, or moral responsibility. |
| Technical-Systemic | Relies on model architecture, platform behavior, or AI system design. |
| Hybrid | Multiple warrant types equally central; no single type dominates. |
Codebook — Discourse Strategy (DS): one or more per segment, all prompts
| Strategy | Definition | Exclusion |
|---|
| Hedging | Uncertainty markers that shape the overall answer. | Must shape the answer, not just appear in it. |
| Synthetic Compromise | Both/and synthesis reconciling opposing positions. | Exclude simple lists without integration. |
| Responsibility Displacement | AI ethical responsibility shifted to humans or institutions. | Exclude if the model genuinely claims AI responsibility. |
| Epistemic Humility | Substantive acknowledgment of limits of what can be known. | Exclude standard disclaimers that do not engage with the question. |
| Reframing | Prompt rewritten into a more answerable or tractable form. | Exclude routine definitional clarifications. |