/ebook-analysis

Relationship Types

This reference defines the relationship types used to link concepts. Use these definitions to guide relationship creation.

Overview

INFLUENCES

Definition: Concept A has a causal or correlational effect on Concept B. A change in A would affect B.

When to Use:

• A causes B to happen
• A enables or facilitates B
• A inhibits or prevents B
• A is a precondition for B

Strength Values:

• Positive (+0.1 to +1.0): A increases/enables B
• Negative (-0.1 to -1.0): A decreases/inhibits B
• Strong (±0.7 to ±1.0): Direct causal relationship
• Moderate (±0.4 to ±0.6): Significant but indirect
• Weak (±0.1 to ±0.3): Correlational or minor

Examples:

• "Trust" INFLUENCES→ "Collaboration" (strength: +0.8)
• "Fear" INFLUENCES→ "Risk-taking" (strength: -0.7)
• "Shared identity" INFLUENCES→ "Community cohesion" (strength: +0.9)

Not INFLUENCES:

• A simply mentions B (use context, not relationship)
• A is a component of B (use COMPOSED_OF)
• A is evidence for B (use SUPPORTS)

SUPPORTS

Definition: Concept A provides evidence, validation, or backing for Concept B. A makes B more credible or justified.

When to Use:

• A is empirical evidence for B
• A is an example that demonstrates B
• A is a theoretical justification for B
• A is a citation or reference for B

Strength Values:

• Strong: Direct empirical evidence or proof
• Moderate: Good example or theoretical support
• Weak: Tangential or partial support

Examples:

• "Research study X" SUPPORTS→ "Spaced repetition improves retention"
• "Case study of Company Y" SUPPORTS→ "Community-led growth works"
• "Historical precedent Z" SUPPORTS→ "Revolutions follow pattern P"

Not SUPPORTS:

• A causes B to happen (use INFLUENCES)
• A is part of B (use COMPOSED_OF)
• B is derived from A (use DERIVES_FROM)

CONTRADICTS

Definition: Concept A conflicts with, opposes, or is incompatible with Concept B. They cannot both be true in the same context.

When to Use:

• A and B make opposite claims
• A and B recommend incompatible approaches
• Evidence for A undermines B
• A and B are mutually exclusive

Strength Values:

• Strong: Direct logical contradiction
• Moderate: Significant tension or incompatibility
• Weak: Partial tension or contextual conflict

Types of Contradiction:

1. Theoretical: Different claims about how things work
2. Practical: Different recommendations for action
3. Contextual: True in different contexts but not compatible

Examples:

• "Move fast and break things" CONTRADICTS↔ "Measure twice, cut once"
• "Communities need strong leadership" CONTRADICTS↔ "Communities should be self-organizing"
• "Research shows X" CONTRADICTS↔ "Research shows not-X"

Bidirectionality: CONTRADICTS is bidirectional - if A contradicts B, then B contradicts A.

Not CONTRADICTS:

• A is simply different from B (difference ≠ contradiction)
• A and B apply in different contexts (may just be contextual)
• A and B are different levels of abstraction

COMPOSED_OF

Definition: Concept A contains Concept B as a component, element, or part. B is nested within A.

When to Use:

• B is a named component of framework A
• B is a step in process A
• B is a required element of A
• A explicitly includes B in its definition

Component Types:

• Prerequisite: B must exist before A
• Component: B is a part of A
• Variant: B is a subtype of A

Examples:

• "Hero's journey" COMPOSED_OF→ "Departure"
• "Hero's journey" COMPOSED_OF→ "Initiation"
• "Hero's journey" COMPOSED_OF→ "Return"
• "Trust" COMPOSED_OF→ "Competence trust" (variant)
• "Trust" COMPOSED_OF→ "Character trust" (variant)

Not COMPOSED_OF:

• B merely relates to A (use INFLUENCES or other)
• B is evidence for A (use SUPPORTS)
• B causes A (use INFLUENCES)

DERIVES_FROM

Definition: Concept A is logically derived from, emerges from, or is a consequence of Concept B. A exists because of B.

When to Use:

• A is a logical conclusion from B
• A emerges from B in a system
• A is an application of B to a context
• A is a specialization of B

Derivation Types:

• Logical conclusion: A follows from B by reasoning
• Emergent property: A arises from B in complex systems
• Synthesis: A combines multiple sources including B

Examples:

• "Community guidelines" DERIVES_FROM→ "Shared values"
• "Specific onboarding tactics" DERIVES_FROM→ "Engagement theory"
• "Leadership practices" DERIVES_FROM→ "Trust principles"

Not DERIVES_FROM:

• B influences A (that's INFLUENCES)
• A is part of B (that's the reverse - B COMPOSED_OF A)
• A is evidence for B (that's the reverse - A SUPPORTS B)

Creating Relationships

When to Create a Relationship

Create a relationship when:

1. The connection is explicitly stated in the source
2. The connection is strongly implied by context
3. The connection would be useful for synthesis and querying

Do NOT create relationships:

• Based on mere co-occurrence in text
• When the connection is trivial or obvious
• When evidence for the connection is weak

Relationship Density

Aim for:

• Every concept linked to at least 1-2 others
• Key concepts (hubs) linked to many others
• Both within-book and cross-book relationships

Avoid:

• Orphan concepts with no relationships
• Over-connected concepts (>10 relationships may indicate over-extraction)
• Circular relationships without clear semantics

Relationship Confidence

Track confidence in relationships:

• High (0.8-1.0): Explicitly stated in source
• Medium (0.5-0.7): Strongly implied or inferred
• Low (0.2-0.4): Reasonable inference, less certain

Flag low-confidence relationships for human review.

Cross-Book Relationships

When analyzing multiple books, additional patterns emerge:

Agreement

Both authors say A INFLUENCES B → Stronger confidence

Complementarity

Author 1 says A INFLUENCES B Author 2 says B INFLUENCES C Combined: A → B → C pathway

Contradiction

Author 1 says A SUPPORTS claim X Author 2 says B CONTRADICTS claim X Flag for synthesis discussion

Extension

Author 1 defines framework F Author 2 applies F to new context DERIVES_FROM relationship across books

Relationship Examples by Domain

Community Building

• "Trust" INFLUENCES→ "Participation" (+0.8)
• "Shared identity" INFLUENCES→ "Retention" (+0.7)
• "Explicit guidelines" SUPPORTS→ "Safe participation"
• "Top-down control" CONTRADICTS↔ "Self-organization"
• "Engagement ladder" COMPOSED_OF→ "Lurker stage"

Learning

• "Active recall" INFLUENCES→ "Retention" (+0.9)
• "Spacing effect" SUPPORTS→ "Spaced repetition works"
• "Massed practice" CONTRADICTS↔ "Distributed practice"
• "Learning pyramid" COMPOSED_OF→ "Reading (10%)"
• "Retrieval practice" DERIVES_FROM→ "Testing effect research"

Leadership

• "Psychological safety" INFLUENCES→ "Team performance" (+0.8)
• "Google Project Aristotle" SUPPORTS→ "Safety matters"
• "Servant leadership" CONTRADICTS↔ "Command-and-control"
• "Situational leadership" COMPOSED_OF→ "Directing style"
• "Specific feedback tactics" DERIVES_FROM→ "Growth mindset theory"