FIELDS W, X, and Y 



Columns 68; 69 and 



70; and 71 



Unfortunately, the interpretation by the coder of an author's evaluation is necessarily often 

 speculative, since so much depends upon the individual author's concept of the meaning of the adjective 

 or symbol he employs as that expression of evaluation. 



In particular do the author's verbal expressions, "inactive" or "ineffective" (Criterion 01), or 

 merely his symbol for "inactive" (Criterion 02), represent an ambiguity. Whereas to some Investigators 

 "inactive" may mean that no response was detected (i. e. , true inactivity), others have used the ex- 

 pression to mean that a response was produced but it was at a level below that which the author 

 considers of significance relative to the use for which the chemical was tested (i. e. , actually active 

 but below a practical active level). Likewise the term "ineffective" is used sometimes to convey the 

 fact that there was no effect, in other words, no biological response, whereas another author may use 

 it in the sense of "inefficiency", i. e. , low effectiveness. Lacking any clue from the data, the coder 

 has no choice but to code these authors' expressions with Symbol 1 of Field Y (unless correspondence 

 with an author clarifies his use of the term "inactive" or "ineffective" as being actually either "no 

 response" or "active but very low in effectiveness"). As a result, interpretation of the punched CBCC 

 Symbol 1 in Field Y with Criterion 01 or 02 bears with it this identical ambiguity. (The author's ex- 

 pression, "no response", is more frequently intended literally and can be interpreted literally by the 

 coder so that it can be more confidently coded with Symbol 1 of Field Y. ) 



Consider the fact that the CBCC codes all negative data (of which there are inevitably a great 

 quantity, especially from screening- type tests), only by use of Criteria 01, 02, and 62; in other words, 

 whether evaluation is or is not based on an author's verbal expression or scoring system, if it is 

 negative, only Criterion 01, 02, or 62 is used. Compared to the frequency of this use of Criterion 01 

 (for any negative data, with Symbol 1 in Field Y), the frequency of use of Criterion 01 for coding an 

 author's actual verbal evaluation or the coder's evaluation (Symbols 2 through 9, as well as Symbol 1) 

 is low. Correspondingly, the problem discussed in the previous paragraph involving an author's verbal 

 ambiguity involves only a very small percentage of the code lines representing negative data. Never- 

 theless, in selecting from the CBCC files all code lines in which the compound has been coded as 

 producing no response, a certain unknown small percentage of those retrieved by Symbol 1 in Field Y 

 would have to be considered as actually representing a positive response instead of no response, and 

 to that extent the IBM punched card sort and the interpretation as "no response" would be inaccurate. 



Inasmuch as there exists a convenient coding tool (Symbol Q of Field W) whose use can prevent 

 the situation just described, in other words, the situation having a factor of unknown quantity and 

 quality included in a set of retrieved negative data, the CBCC elects to use that means, even though 

 it is perhaps contrary to the policy not to code implications the author has not specifically made. Thus, 

 when the author expresses his evaluation merely as "inactive" or "ineffective" or merely with a symbol 

 for "inactive" and there is no way of ascertaining whether there -was actually "no response" or whether 

 there was "positive response but very low effectiveness", code Field W with Symbol 0. rather than 

 assume the author means to imply "no response" and code it with Symbol J (or K). (See Division 3 for 

 the primary purpose of Symbol Q in Field W. ) 



In the case of expressions of degrees of positive activity, an inconsistency of meaning is 

 recognized to exist between authors, in the same way as in the meaning for "inactivity" and 

 "ineffectiveness". However, the ranking of positive activity (after having succeeded in the primary 

 purpose of Fields X and Y--distinguishing fairly adequately, by code, "no response" from "positive 

 response") is really the secondary purpose of the CBCC evaluation fields (as explained in the section 

 on General Use). While it is important to be as accurate as possible in coding grades of positive 

 activity, this grading can be only relative, at best. Therefore, the CBCC is satisfied to code the 

 author's expressions of grades of positive activity literally, according to the explanations of Divisions 

 4 and 5. 



7. Comparative expressions of evaluation used by the author (Criterion 01, 02, 03, and 04) are 

 to be used for coding only when the data do not include the measurement of response 



As indicated in Division 6, an investigator often interprets the intensity of the biological 

 response In the light of the particular use for which the chemical was tested; his expression of evaluation 

 reflects this relationship. To say this another way, an investigator often adapts his expression of 

 evaluation to the general "biological field" concerned (e. g. , the general field of weed control, as 

 opposed to that of insect repellence, enzyme antagonism, or tuberculosis therapy, etc. ). 



181 



