Dominant group

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search
The false color image shows a number of bright magnetic active regions on the Sun. Credit: NASA.
Surface differential rotation "will most easily be detected among stars that have relatively stable modulation over several rotations within a season from a dominant group of [ active regions (ARs)] that experience a noticeable change in mean AR latitude (corresponding to a change in mean rotational period) between consecutive observing seasons."[1] Bold added.
Emblem-extra-cool.svg Completion status: this resource is considered to be ready for use.

"The original inquiry simply started out as curiosity about a phrase that appeared in a number of wikipedia articles yet stood unwritten about."[2] Peer review indicated at that time this curiosity is best directed toward an original research effort. To begin such a project, an early proposal created a proof of concept (phase I). This has been completed. Subsequent analysis has produced a refinement that is now here as phase II:

  1. a focused research proposal and
  2. significant portions of the original research project.
Nuvola apps edu science.svg Educational level: this is a research resource.

As an original research project, the first question needing an answer is "What is the field of the research proposal focused at "dominant group"?

Psi2.png Subject classification: this is a psychology resource .

The form of the proposal follows the suggestion at research proposal[3].

LeafMoss0225Cropped.jpg Subject classification: this is a semantics resource.
Sna large.png Subject classification: this is a Sociology resource.
Jamming cleat.jpg Subject classification: this is a terminology resource.

Contents

Topic[edit]

The two-word term dominant group is the topic of this research proposal. What is it? Where did it come from? How did it come to be used in so many different fields and languages? And, through its relative synonyms, why does it exist? Dominant group may have some inherent fundamental concept associated with it that needs to be explored and understood.

Dominant group may be a subject-independent entity that often serves as an identifier designated by an author, based on observations of phenomena. It does not appear to have a rigorous definition yet appears in at least one glossary type specialists' dictionary. It enjoys current popularity in sociology and minor mention in such diverse fields as "quantum physics", "cometary chemistry", and, of course, "biology". Several theoretical definitions have been discovered.

The decision-making process that applies it within a written text is a topic of interest. Primary source authors performing original research from a theoretical or empirical perspective are apparently using the term based on their training.

From its apparent origins in Kirby's An Introduction to Entomology[4] of 1826, as the plural dominant groups, the term has radiated to additional fields carrying a similar relative meaning, or in relative synonymy. Perhaps it is initially a concept within the natural theological (High Church Hutchinsonian)[5] creation theory.

"The 'religious' grounds you refer to are in fact the attitudes of the dominant church denominations of the time, largely compromised by evolutionary ideas."[6] The word "denominations" has its second most popular meaning in category 1018 RELIGIONS, CULTS, SECTS, which is a relative synonym for "group". The use here in the phrase "dominant church denominations" suggests that in 1826 (174 b2k) these denominations are the original dominant groups of natural theological creation theory.

Notation[edit]

Notation: let the symbol Def. indicate that a definition is following.

Notation: let the symbols between [ and ] be replacement for that portion of a quoted text.

Notation: let the symbol ... indicate unneeded portion of a quoted text.

Sometimes these are combined as [...] to indicate that text has been replaced by ....

Universals[edit]

Def. a "characteristic or property that particular things have in common"[7] is called a universal.

"When we examine common words, we find that, broadly speaking, proper names stand for particulars, while other substantives, adjectives, prepositions, and verbs stand for universals."[8]

Such words as "entity", "object", "thing", and perhaps "body", words "connoting universal properties, ... constitute the very highest genus or "summum genus"" of a classification of universals.[9] To propose a definition for say a plant whose flowers open at dawn on a warm day to be pollinated during the day time using the word "thing", "entity", "object", or "body" seems too general and is.

To help with definitions, their meanings and intents, there is the learning resource theory of definition.

Control groups[edit]

This is an image of a Lewis rat. Credit: Charles River Laboratories.

The findings demonstrate a statistically systematic change from the status quo or the control group.

“In the design of experiments, treatments [or special properties or characteristics] are applied to [or observed in] experimental units in the treatment group(s).[10] In comparative experiments, members of the complementary group, the control group, receive either no treatment or a standard treatment.[11]"[12]

Proposal[edit]

The proposal consists of a research purpose, research questions, hypotheses, research method, experimentation, discussion, ethics, timeline, costs, and funding.

Research purpose[edit]

Research purpose: authors are apparently using dominant group with experimental, observational, or theoretical significance and implications, for a purpose.

This proposal and associated effort involves exploration of individual articles to determine context, definition, or meaning, description with quotes from the authors to indicate context and meaning, explanation as a possible indicator or identifier, and prediction that uses possible meanings in fields where the term is currently absent.

Research questions[edit]

  • What is the nature of the relationship between dominant group and each article, field, and currently available definition(s)?
  • What is the difference between articles regarding usage, if any?
  • What is the effect of dominant group on the article?
  • Are there fields that do not use the 'term'?
  • Are the two words found together in any additional dictionaries or glossaries, or in any common language dictionaries?
  • What is the origin and first use of the term or its primordial concept and usage?

Hypotheses[edit]

  • Accident hypothesis: dominant group is an accident of whatever processes are operating.
  • Artifact hypothesis: dominant group may be an artifact of human endeavor or may have preceded humanity.
  • Association hypothesis: dominant group is associated in some way with the original research.
  • Bad group hypothesis: dominant group is the group that engages in discrimination, abuse, punishment, and additional criminal activity against other groups. It often has an unfair advantage and uses it to express monopolistic practices.
  • Control group hypothesis: there is a control group that can be used to study dominant group.
  • Entity hypothesis: dominant group is an entity within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  • Evolution hypothesis: dominant group is a product of evolutionary processes, such groups are the evolutionary process, produce evolutionary processes, or are independent of evolutionary processes.
  • Identifier hypothesis: dominant group is an identifier used by primary source authors of original research to identify an observation in the process of analysis.
  • Importance hypothesis: dominant group signifies original research results that usually need to be explained by theory and interpretation of experiments.
  • Indicator hypothesis: dominant group may be an indicator of something as yet not understood by the primary author of original research.
  • Influence hypothesis: dominant group is included in a primary source article containing original research to indicate influence or an influential phenomenon.
  • Interest hypothesis: dominant group is a theoretical entity used by scholarly authors of primary sources for phenomena of interest.
  • Metadefinition hypothesis: all uses of dominant group by all primary source authors of original research are included in the metadefinition for dominant group.
  • Null hypothesis: there is no significant or special meaning of dominant group in any sentence or figure caption in any refereed journal article.
  • Object hypothesis: dominant group is an object within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  • Obvious hypothesis: the only meaning of dominant group is the one found in Mosby's Medical Dictionary.
  • Original research hypothesis: dominant group is included in a primary source article by the author to indicate that the article contains original research.
  • Primordial hypothesis: dominant group is a primordial concept inherent to humans such that every language or other form of communication no matter how old or whether extinct, on the verge of extinction, or not, has at least a relative synonym for dominant group.
  • Purpose hypothesis: dominant group is written into articles by authors for a purpose.
  • Regional hypothesis: dominant group, when it occurs, is only a manifestation of the limitations within a region. Variation of those limitations may result in the loss of a dominant group with the eventual appearance of a new one or none at all.
  • Source hypothesis: dominant group is a source within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  • Term hypothesis: dominant group is a significant term that may require a 'rigorous definition' or application and verification of an empirical definition.

Examples from primary sources within each field, such as botany, are to be used to prove or disprove each hypothesis.

Research methods[edit]

  • Small-group study: within each field, the meaning and context is analyzed from a small group of publications.
  • Survey: a survey is conducted using Google scholar, other online search engines, and where needed offline library resources, Wikipedia, Wikiversity, and additional Wikimedia resources.
  • Field experiment: testing each hypothesis and other possibilities is performed during the course of investigating uses of dominant group in articles.
  • Authors of primary source, original research articles may be surveyed using a questionnaire designed here at Wikiversity using available psychological tools to request and hopefully obtain information such as why the authors used the term.

Experimentation[edit]

Sampling: Google scholar, Wikipedia, Wikiversity, other Wikimedia sources and offline libraries are sampled for likely valuable examples.

Discussion[edit]

Data analysis: looking at and summarizing data with the intent to extract useful information, make inferences, and develop conclusions is necessary. Some of the conclusions may be primary or elemental.

Ethics[edit]

Research ethics: those usually associated with scientific research, especially original research, and as described in proof of concept.

Disclosure: again those usually associated with original research and included in proof of concept.

Timeline[edit]

Hopefully a conclusion can be reached in one year.

Costs[edit]

Costs: intellectual effort, computer use time and resources, possible publication costs, a trip to a conference in a neat location.

Funding[edit]

Funding: sufficient income to cover costs, diversion of person-hours from a day job, and as an incentive to perform the research or exploration to overcome specified risks (hopefully).

Project[edit]

Steps or subarticles in the research project follow the proposal as a guide.

A second component of the project is to integrate parts of the research, e.g., Dominant group/Chemistry, into the learning resources for the subject Chemistry and the School of Chemistry at Wikiversity. Each of the subpages has an exploratory research purpose that may benefit each subject involved here at Wikiversity. This includes benefits to one or more Wikiversity courses in terminology or semantics.

As the understanding of dominant group improves so does the understanding of its use by explorers, researchers, and scientists. At the most general, dominant group may be a 'being' or 'beings', a 'body', a 'thing', or an 'entity'. For the term to be more specific than an 'entity' requires more specificity with respect to its intent or the theory of its use by the authors.

Red listings below indicate either a user page that may be improved to become a learning resource or an offline page that may be brought to Wikiversity for development as a learning resource.

Possible funding[edit]

An initial attempt to receive funding aimed at the Linguistics Program of the National Science Foundation of the USA has been concluded. Two additional potential funding agencies have been suggested.

National Science Foundation of the USA[edit]

Linguistics

The initial attempt to receive funding is aimed at the National Science Foundation of the USA. A proposal to an appropriate program director or manager contains the following parts:

With points of view and other matters described in

Science, Technology, and Society

National Endowment for the Humanities of the USA[edit]

"All applicants to National Endowment for the Humanities are required to use Grants.gov."[13]

"The [US] federal government has mandated that all federal government grant-making agencies use Grants.gov as their primary way of receiving grant applications."[13]

Learning resource development[edit]

Learning resource field[edit]

Each of the various subpages should fall into a specific field for which it may then be developed into a learning resource for that field and the role dominant group plays in that field. Some subpages have easily assigned learning resource fields:

Semantics[edit]

Relationship[edit]

The nature of the relationship between dominant group and each article, field, and currently available definition(s) needs to be explored.

Of the classes of articles containing the term dominant group, those containing “despotism”, “superiority”, “master”, “control”, “power”, and “influence” are from synonymous categories. It is possible that classes of numerousness are closely synonymous through “superiority”, as “superior numbers”.

Control group is a special relative synonym of dominant group.

Difference[edit]

Of the classes of articles containing the term dominant group, “diffuseness (radiance)” and “diversity” are not closely synonymous. Of some 1040[14] categories of synonymy, these concepts fall within the 1,024 categories of synonymy outside those of dominant group, and its relative synonyms, and may contribute to “theoretical definitions” or other types of definitions.

Group[edit]

By definition, group is a number of things or persons being in some relation to one another.

By definition, relation is the manner in which two or more things or persons may be associated; thereby, being members of the group.

A majority by definition often refers to the mathematical concept of a subset of a statistical population (population) or a group consisting of more than half of its members. For a majority, the relation is often between the population and the subset; i.e., more than half, perhaps here on some basis or criteria for dominance such as a majority.

The most common usage of the word 'group' by category is "61. CLASSIFICATION".[14]

Dominant[edit]

By definition, dominance:

  1. The state of being dominant; of prime importance; supremacy.
  2. Being in a position of power, authority or ascendancy over others.
  3. The superior development or preference for one side of the body or of one of a pair of organs; such as being right-handed.
  4. The property of a gene such that it supresses the expression of its allele.

By definition, dominant: as an adjective

  1. Ruling; governing; prevailing; controlling; as, the dominant party, church, spirit, power.
    The dominant party controlled the government.
  2. Predominant, common, prevalent, of greatest importance.
    The dominant plants of the Carboniferous were lycopods and early conifers.
    • 2009, H. Stephen Stoker, General, Organic, and Biological Chemistry, page 10
      All other elements are mere "impurities" when their abundances are compared with those of these two dominant elements.

By definition, dominant as a noun:

  1. "a: a dominant genetic character or factor
    b: any of one or more kinds of organism (as a species) in an ecological association that exerts a controlling influence on the environment and thereby largely determines what other kinds of organisms share in the association"[15]
  2.  : "the fifth note of the diatonic scale".[15]

The most common use of the word dominant is in category "171. INFLUENCE".[14]

The most common use of the word dominance is in category "737. AUTHORITY".[14]

By most common language usages at least in English, the two words dominant and dominance are not identical.

Meta-term[edit]

By categories, the artificial term, or meta-term, "influence classification", from searching Wiktionary yields "There were no results matching the query.", and without quotes yields disconnected sentences, one for the first term, another for the second.

"A meta-term is a variable with a number of associated attributes. The attributes can be independently processed"[16].

Metadefinition[edit]

The metadefinition (meta definition or Meta definition) layer can be defined as a higher level definition. A ‘meta definition’ may consist of the definition of several objects.[17] The metadefinition of a particular definition is the set of attributes that address and satisfy a number of purposes or functions for that definition to be a definition.[18]

As an illustration of this, the metadefinition of a dominant group may consist of the definitions of the following objects:

  1. a relation,
  2. a population,
  3. a basis or "criteria for dominance"[19], and
  4. a country (of the dominant group),[20] region, territory, or the like.

Inclusion effect[edit]

A study of the effect of dominant group on the article should include that of alternate forms, for example, Al-dominant group[21] and dominant Group D rocks[22].

The use of dominant group may be from an alternate word group, "On the few occasions that discussion diverted from the dominant consensus, awareness of alternative languages and logics was vital in establishing a consistent oppositional argument. In the following exchange, for example, John refers to an ‘ecocentric’ ethic to argue against the prevailing logic of the group"[23]. A later portion of a sentence "John eventually acquiesced to the dominant group logic,"[23] (bold added) suggests synonymy between "prevailing logic" and "dominant ... logic", where "of the group" has been replaced not with "group dominant logic" or "dominant logic of the group" but with "dominant group logic". The phrase "dominant consensus" suggests a subgroup that may be a majority of the group; hence, a dominant group.

Meaning[edit]

"Of the meaning of 'dominant group' he writes: 'Now when a technical word is coined to designate some non-linguistic phenomenon, or when a word (such as 'dominant') is taken over from ordinary speech and used to designate the phenomenon, a new semantic rule is required. Otherwise, the range of application of the word will be unspecified.'"[24] Here, the quote within the quote and the "he writes" refer to Goudge[25]. At the very least, "the range of application of the word"[25] may be unspecified.

Each field within which the term dominant group is used has the same problem: "unless and until a rigorous definition of the term 'dominant group' is rendered, the argument fails to establish its conclusion due to the fact that one of its premises is meaningless."[26]

Field[edit]

The field to which an appropriate rigorous or justifiable empirical meaning of dominant group may be home to is linguistic anthropology or cultural anthropology. But, heavy occurrence of the term in psychology articles necessitates inclusion of this field. Dominant group is a two-word, scientific or technical term putting it in the field of terminology, where its meaning is a study of semantics.

With its earliest readily accessible origin in the 1826 book by Kirby and Spence, 185 B.P. or 174 b2k (before 2000), the term may qualify as a topic in the history of science.

The term enjoys current popularity in sociology.

The fourth area of possible interest is linguistics.

Considering the wide variety of fields within which dominant group occurs, philosophy should be added to the list.

One field wherein dominant group does not occur according to Google scholar is acanthocytosis. A second field is airscapes.

Fields (Fs) without dominant group (dg), F + dg = 0 articles.
Specialty Field Google scholar hits (about) Field Major field
acanthocytosis 3,130 genetic disorder Biology (genetics)
accelerator physics 11,900 particle (high-energy) accelerators Physics
airscapes 295 space allocation Geography
alloxazines 2,290 photochemistry Chemistry
alpha Persei cluster 201 open star cluster Astronomy

In dominant group/origin is the discovery of a use of dominant group in 1826 (174 b2k), the earliest use so far. A relative synonym for dominant group, specifically "dominant party", has been discovered dating to 1820.

From theoretical astronomy is the exploration of the word 'entity'. Here it is described that in terms of generalness: 'being' > 'body' > 'thing' > 'entity' is the realization that dominant group for any field is an 'entity' and perhaps a 'thing', although a group of people may be thought of as a 'body' or a 'being'. The best concept home appears to be 'entity'.

Proliferation[edit]

The term dominate group is found in the context of articles from many fields, as noted in its timeline and radiance and journals of most recent occurrence.

Exploration into alternate terms which are relative synonyms for dominant group suggest that as many as 10% of the articles (about 9,870,000) recovered by, for example, a Google scholar advanced search, are likely to contain one of these relative synonyms. Dominant alone occurs in about 3,570,000 articles, group alone in about 5,670,000, and both, though not necessarily associated, occur in about 2,940,000.

A search backward in time using only "dominant" to see what other words it is used to modify has discovered "dominant party", which is a relative synonym for dominant group in 1820.

Dictionary[edit]

Biological dictionary[edit]

According to a Google scholar search using "Dictionary of Biology" + "dominant group", there is a "[CITATION] Dictionary Of Biology R Rita - Anmol Publications PVT. LTD." This suggests without direct verification online that this dictionary contains a definition of "dominant group" in biology.

Medical dictionary[edit]

A definition of dominant group: "a social group that controls the value system and rewards in a particular society."[27] occurs in Mosby's Medical Dictionary.[27]

On Google scholar is "[CITATION] 1.2 A Practical Medical Dictionary (1911) TL Stedman… - The nature of difference: sciences of race …, 2009 - The MIT Press" that contains "Dictionary of Anthropology" + "dominant group" in some form. But, continued searching within this dictionary has revealed that "dominant" and "group" do not occur juxtaposed as "dominant group".

Accident hypothesis[edit]

Dominant group is an accident of whatever processes are operating.

Artifact hypothesis[edit]

Dominant group may be an artifact of human endeavor or may have preceded humanity.

Association hypothesis[edit]

Dominant group is associated in some way with the original research.

Bad group hypothesis[edit]

Dominant group is the group that engages in discrimination, abuse, punishment, and additional criminal activity against other groups. It often has an unfair advantage and uses it to express monopolistic practices.

Control group hypothesis[edit]

There is a control group that can be used to study dominant group.

Entity hypothesis[edit]

Dominant group is an entity within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.

Evolution hypothesis[edit]

Dominant group is a product of evolutionary processes, such groups are the evolutionary process, produce evolutionary processes, or are independent of evolutionary processes.

Identifier hypothesis[edit]

Dominant group is an identifier used by primary source authors of original research to identify an observation in the process of analysis.

Importance hypothesis[edit]

Dominant group signifies original research results that usually need to be explained by theory and interpretation of experiments.

Indicator hypothesis[edit]

Dominant group may be an indicator of something as yet not understood by the primary author of original research.

Influence hypothesis[edit]

Dominant group is included in a primary source article containing original research to indicate influence or an influential phenomenon.

Interest hypothesis[edit]

Dominant group is a theoretical entity used by scholarly authors of primary sources for phenomena of interest.

Metadefinition hypothesis[edit]

All uses of dominant group by all primary source authors of original research are included in the metadefinition for dominant group. Examples of this are in small group study.

Null hypothesis[edit]

Specifically, there is no significant or special meaning of dominant group in any sentence or figure caption in any refereed journal article.

Two definitions of a theoretical definition are "the meaning of a word in terms of the theories of a specific discipline"[28] and that "which attempts to formulate a theoretically adequate characterization of the objects to which it is applied."[9]

Def. "a social group that controls the value system and rewards in a particular society"[27] is called a dominant group. This definition is in Mosby's Medical Dictionary only.

Using Google scholar as a search engine, the following theoretical definition has been found within the refereed journal "The Sociological Quarterly": "For purposes of this analysis, I define a dominant ethnic group as the ethnic group in a society that exercises power to create and maintain a pattern of economic, political, and institutional advantage, which in turn results in the unequal (disproportionately beneficial to the dominant group) distribution of resources."[29] While this definition is specific to ethnic groups rather than all groups that may have within them a dominant group, it is a theoretical definition of a dominant group and serves to disprove the null hypothesis.

A second theoretical definition occurs in the refereed "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology": "[A] group is dominant if it possesses a disproportionate share of societal resources, privileges, and power."[30]

These two theoretical definitions disprove the null hypothesis.

Object hypothesis[edit]

Dominant group is an object within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.

Obvious hypothesis[edit]

Def. "a social group that controls the value system and rewards in a particular society"[27] is called a dominant group.

The only meaning of dominant group is found in Mosby's Medical Dictionary above.

A risk inherent in original research is that the topic (here: dominant group) has already been investigated and reported on in the archival refereed literature in some specific subject area, such as anthropology, where search engines either have not discovered it, or have not listed it as within the first ten to one hundred reported to the searcher.

This is a problem, or challenge, inherent in any research endeavor, especially at the beginning (the most vulnerable period).

Meanings of dominant group[edit]

The discovery of two theoretical definitions of "dominant group" (described in the section 'Null hypothesis') goes a long ways toward disproving the 'obvious hypothesis'.

An additional theoretical definition has been found from Charles Robert Darwin:

Def. “[u]nder the many conditions of life which this world affords, any group which is numerous in individuals and species and is widely distributed, may properly be called dominant" [a dominant group]. [Letter 110. To W.H. Harvey, August, 1860][31]

From the naturalist, William Kirby in 1826 comes the following definition of "dominant group":

Def. groups of insects whose geographical distribution "extends to the tropics, [but] fall short of the polar circles" are called dominant groups.[4]

  1. Mosby's Medical Dictionary dates from 2009, whereas Darwin's dates from 1860 and Kirby's dates from 1826.
  2. Darwin mentions groups of individuals and species and Kirby's mentions groups of insects, whereas Mosby's definition refers specifically to a social group within a society.
  3. Mosby's definition includes "controls the value system and rewards" whereas neither Darwin nor Kirby indicates any such concern even if it may be present.

Comparison and contrast between these theoretical definitions and the definition found in Mosby's Medical Dictionary indicates that the obvious hypothesis has been disproved.

Evaluating further exploration[edit]

Evaluating further whether this exploration is a waste of time and effort depends on what can be achieved and possibly published for available funding.

Part of assessing the value of continuing involves examining the current state of the art in a number of similar subject areas where articles may occur regarding other terms.

Theoretical impact[edit]

It may be the case with "dominant group" that its association with three theories of evolution: natural selection, evolutionary progressivism (eugenics), and the modern evolutionary synthesis, has directly precipitated the radiation and diversity of applications of the term.

The discovery of two early occurrences of "dominant group" prior to Darwin's 1859 book Origin of species suggests that Darwin incorporated the term as part of his theory, perhaps to explain it with 'natural selection'.

"The Ants and the Staphylini have been supposed to represent each other in the tropical and temperate zones. In the temperate zone, and especially in our own country, the Staphylini are a dominant group, and the ants a secondary one."[32]

“The fact that a group is egoistic and dominant proves that it is well formed and that it approaches the make-up of a man.”[33]

Competition[edit]

Further, a hot, popular topic is likely to have competitors. Although, I make no claim that "dominant group" is either.

"Personally, i think the best way to proceed would be with a rewritten article on Dominant Group."[34]

"I agree with a re-writing of Dominant Group -- in fact, I had assumed there was an article already."[35]

An additional challenge with an 'open for reading' original research project such as this is simply that anyone reading what has been discovered so far may leap frog ahead and publish before this research can reach that point.

Available from Amazon.com is a book published on June 17, 2011, entitled, "Dominant group".[36] The advertisement states, "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online. A dominant group is the group whose interests a system is meant to serve and whose identity it is meant to represent. The system is a form of government where representatives of a particular group hold a number of posts disproportionately large to the percentage of the total population that the particular group represents and uses them to advance the position of their particular group to the detriment of others. A group is dominant if it possesses a disproportionate share of societal resources, privileges, and power. A dominant group need not be a numerical majority, though it often is."[36] This book contains the now deleted "dominant group" articles from Wikipedia.

Compositional definition[edit]

When any definitional technique such as genus differentia succeeds in producing a definition of "dominant group" other than those already discovered that meets all five conditions, the obvious hypothesis is disproved.

Genera differentia[edit]

Combining two genera ('class' and 'sect') with two differentia ('superior' and 'ruling') provides a series of definitions for dominant group.

Def. a superior class ruling a sect is called a dominant group. Here, the superiority of the class may be based on numerousness, but it need not be. And, the sect may have a location (a region or country) within which occurs the superior class. As the superior class rules the sect, it rules the region or location ("in their own countries", after Darwin) of the sect.

From the meteors example: "The dominant group in all cases are stony meteors."[37] The superior class of stony meteors rules the sect of meteors.

The word superiority does not lend itself well to a verb form, but another synonym from the same category may suffice.

Def. a ruling class that excels its sect is called a dominant group. The ruling class of stony meteors excels the sect of meteors.

Def. a ruling class that transcends its sect is called a dominant group. This is another example. The ruling class of stony meteors transcends the sect of meteors.

Def. a class that rules superiority and the sect is called a dominant group. This is close to "a social group that controls the value system and rewards in a particular society."[27] The definition of "dominant group" that occurs in Mosby's Medical Dictionary.[27] By reducing Mosby's definition to "a class (group) that controls the superiority (value system) and the sect (rewards, such as membership in the class)", the core meaning of "dominant group" is isolated. Adding the redundancy "social" and "a particular society" may not be needed to convey meaning but does add emphasis.

Five conditions[edit]

With Mosby's definition and the meteor's usage, the essential attributes are set out. (Rule 1)

The genera (class and sect) are relative synonyms of 'group'. But, they can be put into a hierarchy (class > sect). The differentia (rules and superiority) or (superior and rules) are free for multiple uses: 'a ruling class', 'rules superiority', or 'transcends its sect' so as to avoid circularity. (Rule 2)

The genera and differentia must be applicable to everything to which the defined term applies and nothing else. (Rule 3) This requires a careful examination of each of the small group study examples.

The purpose of a definition is to explain the meaning of a term which may be obscure or difficult, by the use of terms that are commonly understood and whose meaning is clear. (Rule 4) Initially, this appears to be the case, but words leading to a precising definition may be needed as with Mosby's definition and the meteor's usage.

The genera differentia definitions are not negative. (Rule 5)

Choosing better relative synonyms may resolve any issues with Rule 3 and Rule 4.

Original research hypothesis[edit]

Dominant group is included in a primary source article by the author to indicate that the article contains original research.

Primordial hypothesis[edit]

Dominant group is a primordial concept inherent to humans such that every language or other form of communication no matter how old or whether extinct, on the verge of extinction, or not, has at least a relative synonym for dominant group.

Purpose hypothesis[edit]

Dominant group is written into articles by authors for a purpose.

Regional hypothesis[edit]

Dominant group, when it occurs, is only a manifestation of the limitations within a region. Variation of those limitations may result in the loss of a dominant group with the eventual appearance of a new one or none at all.

Source hypothesis[edit]

Dominant group is a source within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.

Term hypothesis[edit]

Specifically, "dominant group" is a significant term that may require a 'rigorous definition' or application and verification of an empirical definition.

Definitions[edit]

“[D]efinitions are always of symbols, for only symbols have meanings for definitions to explain.”[9] A term can be one or more of a set of symbols such as words, phrases, letter designations, or any already used symbol or new symbol.

In the theory of definition, “the symbol being defined is called the definiendum, and the symbol or set of symbols used to explain the meaning of the definiendum is called the definiens.”[9] “The definiens is not the meaning of the definiendum, but another symbol or group of symbols which, according to the definition, has the same meaning as the definiendum.”[9]

Lexical definition[edit]

A lexical definition is usually a dictionary definition and "is either true or false."[9]

A definition of dominant group: "a social group that controls the value system and rewards in a particular society."[27] occurs in Mosby's Medical Dictionary.[27]

From planetary science under the subject of meteors is this use of the term "dominant group": "The dominant group in all cases are stony meteors."[37] The article is entitled, "On the composition of meteors". The phrase "in all cases" refers to various meteor showers experienced here on Earth.

In the article precising definition, there is that "[a] precising definition is a definition that extends the lexical definition of a term for a specific purpose by including additional criteria that narrow down the set of things meeting the definition." The precising definition is usually aimed at the definiens. For Mosby's Medical Dictionary definition of "dominant group" this is "a social group that controls the value system and rewards in a particular society."

An attempt at a precising definition might be "a social group that in all cases are stony meteors". Independent of verb plurality "are" versus "is", the latter "definition" regarding "stony meteors" clearly contradicts the idea of a "social group". This suggests that the 'meteors' definition (if it can be called that) is a stipulative definition: "a type of definition in which a ... currently-existing term is given a specific meaning for the purposes of ... discussion in a given context." Similar to stipulative definitions are "[t]heoretical definitions, used extensively in science" (quote is from the article stipulative definition). From the article on theoretical definitions, such a definition "gives the meaning of a word in terms of the theories of a specific discipline."

For Mosby's Medical Dictionary definition there is the use of "a social group". As a specific discipline this suggests either sociology or psychology. From social psychology is "[o]n our use of the term, a dominant group need not be a numerical majority (although it often will be)."[30] This article is published in the "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology" dated August 2005.

Eight editions of Mosby's Medical Dictionary have occurred, but only the more recent seven (1987 - 2nd to 2009 - 8th) are accessible by either Google scholar or a full web search using Google. Of these, "dominant group" is defined in and additionally occurs within another term's definition in the 8th edition only.

This suggests but does not confirm that the definition in Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition (2009), is a precising definition of the term as used in 2005, where "a social group that controls the value system and rewards in a particular society."[27] "need not be a numerical majority (although it often will be)."[30]

Within the article, precising definition, it is stated "a precising definition does not [contradict the lexical definition]." That is the case above.

Although the exact wording of some earlier definition of "dominant group" from either sociology or psychology has not been found, it seems likely from chronology that it includes "need not be a numerical majority (although it often will be)."[30] in some meaningful way.

The 'meteors' article, published in 1958, states "stony meteors, i.e. 68 p.c."[37] "among all the 217 meteors"[37]. The abbreviation "p.c." is for "per cent" or "per centage". Here there is commonality between some early sociological or psychological definition of "dominant group" as a majority and as a majority of meteors.

So far in the ongoing timeline and radiance exploration, the earliest sociological use of "dominant group" occurs in the article "Art in a Democracy"[38] from 1923: "It is but natural that when aristocratic ideals should impose themselves upon any polity the art of that polity should reflect the taste, the culture, the ways of life, and the very being of the dominant classes." and “At any rate, here is confirmation of the thesis that art voices the will of the dominant group in society.”

For the earliest discovered psychology article (1930), "a member of [the dominant group] will excel submissive persons in academic endeavors."[39]

Neither of these uses of the term precisely excludes "need not be a numerical majority (although it often will be)."[30], but appear to be additional precising definitions or may be stipulative or theoretical definitions of some other definition.

The use of "dominant group" in the 'meteors' article does not contradict the 'majority' usage of social psychology, but is obviously at odds with "a social group", or at least the "social" portion. Further, the term's use in the 'meteors' article does seem to contradict the earliest uses of "dominant group" in sociology (aristocratic classes, 1923) but not necessarily the earliest in psychology (1930).

In searching titles at url=http://www.jstor.org, the term "majority" has its earliest occurrence in 1672, "psychology" in 1800, "sociology" in 1845, and "dominant group" in 1877. For combinations, "dominant group" + majority, the earliest occurrence is in 1877, "dominant group" + psychology is 1884, "dominant group" + sociology is 1897, "dominant group" + majority + psychology is 1912, and "dominant group" + majority + sociology is 1912. The last two combinations occur in the same article: "Race Psychology: Standpoint and Questionnaire, With Particular Reference to the Immigrant and the Negro"[40] in the American Journal of Sociology. "Dominant group" appears on page 756 and majority appears on 741. "Majority" appears to refer to the majority of Poles in Pozen, Poland, while "dominant group" appears to refer to the majority in the United States relative to immigrants and "the Negro" (minorities). This usage tends to confirm but does not indicate that "dominant group", majority, psychology, and sociology are associated in 1912.

If confirmed from additional sources, the association of these four terms suggests that the more recent usage for non-majority groups may be a precising on this undiscovered earlier definition to possible dominant minority groups. The earlier usage, then, involves a majority.

Synonymous definition[edit]

A synonymous definition is a definition “defining a single word [or symbol] by giving another single word [or symbol] which has the same meaning.”[9] But, synonymous definitions have limitations:

  1. “some words have no exact synonyms”[9],
  2. a synonymous definition “cannot be used in the construction of precising or theoretical definitions.”[9], and
  3. no synonym should appear in the definiens of a genus–differentia definition.[9]
Synonyms for "majority"[14]
Synonym Category Number Category Title
“main part” 54 WHOLE
“majorship” 747 MASTER
“maturity” 126 AGE
“plurality” 100 PLURALITY
“superiority” 36 SUPERIORITY

From JSTOR, url=http://www.jstor.org, the earliest occurrence in an article of the above and other words of interest are

Earliest article occurrence of words of interest.
Symbol Year
"dominant" 1672
"group" ~1739
“main part” 1665
"majority" 1672
“majorship” 1880
“maturity” 1665
“plurality” 1673
“superiority” 1669

Synonyms for “dominant” together with their category of most common usage are

Synonyms for "dominant"[14]
Synonym Category Number Category Title
“a superior” 36 SUPERIORITY
“chief” 747 MASTER
“controlling” 739 GOVERNMENT
“influential” 171 INFLUENCE
“most important” 670 IMPORTANCE
“music” 461 MUSIC
“musical note” 462 HARMONICS
“note” 528 ATTENTION
“ruling” 996 LEGALITY

where the categories 36, 171, 462, 670, and 739, and words "note", "music", "chief", "influential", "most important", and "ruling" are actually listed.[14]

The overlap in synonymy between “majority” and “dominant” is categories 36 and 747. Although many of the others could be used in description to construct stipulative definitions.

In Mosby's Medical Dicitionary definition that a dominant group is "a social group that controls the value system and rewards in a particular society."[27] is a synonym for "ruling": "controls", which is a verb form of "controlling". Although this synonym is absent from "need not be a numerical majority (although it often will be)."[30], there is the question of what's defining a "dominant group" when it's not the majority?

Both the current lexical definition and some as yet unfound earlier lexical definition from which the current one may have been precised appear to have problems. Both problems are matters of synonymy. The most common usage of "dominant" and thereby the most likely category to find the closest synonyms to exact synonyms is in category "171. INFLUENCE"[14]. For "majority" this is category "100. PLURALITY"[14]. The further away from exact synonymy the category is, the less exact relatively is the synonymy. This suggests that terms outside category 171 may be okay for lexical definitions as the one in Mosby's Medical Dictionary of "dominant group" using "controls". The same for some earlier unfound lexical definition using "majority", category 100.

This degree of relative synonymy also allows an answer to "what's defining a "dominant group" when it's not the majority?" An answer is in the synonyms for "majority", especially in category 100, but especially not in categories 36 or 747 because of the overlap in relative synonymy. Yet, here again both categories 36 and 747 are relatively away from categories 100 and 171 in meaning. These could be used in precising or theoretical definitions.

With relative synonymy instead of exact synonymy, relative synonyms may be useable in a genus–differentia definition.

This same approach of relative synonymy should be applied to the word "group". Although use within "dominant group" suggests that "group" is a noun, "group" can be used as a verb.

Synonyms for "group"[14] nouns
Synonym Category Number Category Title
“class” 61 CLASSIFICATION
“company” 74 ASSEMBLAGE
“set” 786 ASSOCIATION
“sect” 1018 RELIGIONS, CULTS, SECTS
Synonyms for "group"[14] verbs (group, grouped, grouping)
Synonym Category Number Category Title
“arrange” 60 ARRANGEMENT
“classify” 61 CLASSIFICATION
“assemble” 74 ASSEMBLAGE
“size” 194 SIZE
“painting” (for "grouping") 572 ART

With a two-word term, genus classes (or categories[14]) may consist of three varieties:

  1. category1 + category2,
  2. "dominant" + category2, or
  3. category1 + "group".

Here "category1" refers to any category of relative synonyms for "dominant" (adjective or noun), and "category2" is the same for "group" (noun or verb).

The added possibilities of "group" as a verb suggests usages like "dominantly grouped", with the adverb "dominantly", or "dominant grouping".

These variations in part due to analyzing a two-word term allow additional possibilities to consider in forming genus differentia definitions.

Genus–differentia definition[edit]

From the Wikipedia article genus-differentia definition: "[a] genus-differentia definition is a type of intentional definition ... composed by two parts:

  1. a genus (or family): An existing definition that serves as a portion of the new definition; ... [and]
  2. the differentia: The portion of the new definition that is not provided by the genera."

The rules for definition by genus and differentia are in the Wikipedia article definition.

For the term "dominant group" there is

  1. the 2009 lexical definition of "dominant group" as "a social group that controls the value system and rewards in a particular society."[27] which occurs in Mosby's Medical Dictionary and
  2. some as yet unfound lexical definition existing around or before 2005 which contains the phrase "need not be a numerical majority (although it often will be)."[30] in a meaningful way.

The text from the 'meteors' article[37] served to demonstrate that around 1958, some unfound lexical definition of "dominant group" contained "a numerical majority", but not necessarily the phrase "a social group".

Possible starting points for the exploration of genus-differentia definitions are

  1. "a social group",
  2. a group or "need not be [a social group] (although it often will be)",
  3. "a numerical majority", and
  4. a synonym for "need not be a numerical majority".

An initial objective might be some earlier definition that handles classes of use of the term "dominant group".

The first two possibilities have a shortcoming already present in the second two. This shortcoming has been described by Millet in the article entitled, "Defining the "Dominant Group"", in the journal of Canadian Ethnic Studies,[19] specifically, the article "[t]races the evolution of the dominant group in Canada since 1931 by examining criteria for dominance that have evolved over time."[19] Also of interest is that "the category of "dominant group" has unclear limits and varies from one geographical region to another."[19]

Some attempts at a genus for "dominant group" may be

  1. a group that is a numerical majority within a region is called a dominant group.
  2. a group that is most numerous within a region is called a dominant group.
  3. a group that is in first place within a region is called a dominant group.

The second and third definitions allow for a majority among many as a special case, but not necessarily as a requirement.

While the most common usage of "most", "plurality", and "majority" is category "100. PLURALITY"[14] for synonymy, a category that overlaps with "dominant" is "36. SUPERIORITY"[14] which contains the phrase "first place"[14].

A first genus then is "a first place group" or "a group in first place". The "differentia" become the criteria of ordering the groups such as by classes:

  1. numerousness (plurality to majority to all),
  2. violence (despotism),
  3. diffuseness (radiance),
  4. diversity,
  5. superiority,
  6. mastery,
  7. control,
  8. power, or
  9. influence.

The phrase "first place" can be applied to almost every category of synonymy from "1. EXISTENCE"[14] to "1040. RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS"[14]. From Google scholar this phrase occurs in about 2,500,000 articles. On Wikipedia it occurs in 16,217 articles. This suggests that "first place" grants too much.

Perhaps an approximate comparison of article popularity for these classes on Google scholar will shed some insight.

Number of articles on Google scholar.
Term Number of articles Differentia Popularity in articles
“control” 5,550,000 population group criteria dominance region 175,000
“all” 5,180,000 population group criteria dominance region 212,000
“influence” 4,750,000 population group criteria dominance region 171,000
“whole” 4,350,000 population group criteria dominance region 149,000
“plurality” 4,090,000 population group criteria dominance region 23,000
“power” 2,590,000 population group criteria dominance region 142,000
"first place" 2,500,000 population group criteria dominance region 40,700
“majority” 2,280,000 population group criteria dominance region 137,000
“diversity” 2,010,000 population group criteria dominance region 128,000
“dominance” 1,660,000 population group criteria dominance region 213,000
"violence" 1,590,000 population group criteria dominance region 62,900
“superiority” 761,000 population group criteria dominance region 37,200
“mastery” 569,000 population group criteria dominance region 28,100
“radiance” 209,000 population group criteria dominance region 8,740
“despotism” 89,000 population group criteria dominance region 13,000
"dominant group" 69,100 population group criteria dominance region 7,180
“diffuseness” 33,900 population group criteria dominance region 8,840
“numerousness” 2,720 population group criteria dominance region 463
population group criteria dominance region 213,000 population group criteria dominance region 213,000

Any of the far more popular genus classes require substantial differentia to bring the focus of meaning to perhaps within a factor of three in popularity (and perhaps intent by author) of "dominant group". Adding "dominance" into the focusing suggests that differentia very close to "171. INFLUENCE"[14] in synonymy are needed.

Term filtering is described in Dominant group/Two-word terms.

Theoretical definition[edit]

Article title: "Dominant Group Ethnic Identity in the United States: The Role of 'Hidden’ Ethnicity in Intergroup Relations"[29]. "For purposes of this analysis, I define a dominant ethnic group as the ethnic group in a society that exercises power to create and maintain a pattern of economic, political, and institutional advantage, which in turn results in the unequal (disproportionately beneficial to the dominant group) distribution of resources."[29]

Def. "the ethnic group in a society that exercises power to create and maintain a pattern of economic, political, and institutional advantage, which in turn results in the unequal (disproportionately beneficial to the dominant group) distribution of resources" is called a dominant ethnic group.[29]

"[A] group is dominant if it possesses a disproportionate share of societal resources, privileges, and power."[30]

Def. "if [a group] possesses a disproportionate share of societal resources, privileges, and power" it is called a dominant group.[30]

Rigorous definition[edit]

The key question is: has a rigorous definition already been rendered in context for the term "dominant group"? And, before that, what is a rigorous definition?

  • Temporal encoding

Perhaps, "a rigorous definition for the term temporal encoding"[41] may be helpful, as it is close but still not in evolutionary biology. This rigorous "definition relies on the identification of an encoding time window"[41].

Definition: "an encoding time window [is] the duration of a neuron's spike train assumed to correspond to a single symbol in the neural code."[41]

Theorem: "[t]he duration of the encoding time window is dictated by the time scale of the information being encoded."[41]

  • Stem cell

A rigorous definition of the term “stem cell” is as follows.[42]

Definition: A cell is a stem cell if and only if it has the properties:

  1. unlimited self-renewal and
  2. within-tissue multipotentiality.[42]

This definition has limited flexibility in that it “does not necessarily exclude cross-tissue plasticity.”[42]

  • Axiomatic definition

It has been stated that "the rigorous definition of distance" fulfills "the three axioms that define an Euclidean metric" so that a "generalized metric can be defined using as distance an appropriate function ... that fulfills the three axioms of an Euclidean metric".[43] Having met these three axioms as a criteria of an Euclidean metric, the definition of the generalized metric is said to be a "rigorous definition of distance".[43]

An axiomatic definition is a rigorous definition: "the definition must clearly state the rules that are considered as binding, and on the other hand give the implementor enough freedom to achieve efficiency by leaving certain less important aspects undefined."[44] This rigorous definition is for "an axiomatic definition of the programming language PASCAL".[44]

Test[edit]

"A high diversity of terrestrial vertebrates with dinosaurs as the dominant group is strongly indicated but not much of it is yet recorded."[45] The foregoing text suggests that 'dominant group' is being used as a test of available information on dinosaurs, specifically from the early to middle Jurassic of Africa as of early 2011.

Timeline and radiance[edit]

While "dominant group" may appear in a publication within a specific subject area, it may not necessarily be the case that a change in meaning specific to that subject area has occurred. In timeline and radiance, article titles and references are included where the term is used for the apparent first appearance.

Although Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859 appears to be the origin or first use of the term "dominant group", both "dominant" and "group" as words and terms have been around for centuries longer. Is there a possible earlier origin?

Further searching of older literature has produced three occurrences with two separate meanings of "dominant group" in two distinct subjects. In the period 1853-7, Alexis de Tocqueville writes of a dominant group with respect to government. In 1840 and earlier in 1826, dominant group is used to refer to specific groups of insects, the latter by geographical distribution.

Small group study[edit]

Within each subject area, the meaning and context is analyzed from a small group of publications per the metadefinition. The publications chosen should have a downloadable form so that occurrences of dominant group can be found and context regarding its components available. The results for each dominant group are within small group study. For each small group subject area, each article content is used to analyze the contextual meanings. Individual studies are located at subpages:

  1. Agriculture,
  2. Anthropology,
  3. Archaeology,
  4. Astronomy,
  5. Economics,
  6. Geology,
  7. Metagenome,
  8. Planetary science,
  9. Sociology.

The above subpages demonstrate that a metadefinition successfully characterizes the use of dominant group by various authors and in many subjects.

A second use of the small group study is to include relative synonyms without dominant group specifically mentioned within the text.

To add learning resources to Wikiversity and to explore alternatives for the authors' use of dominant group in context, additional subpages are either under development or are already in resource space and are included in the template for dominant group below.

Field experiment[edit]

Test each hypothesis.

Darwin's compelling use of the term may have influenced others to include it. The term may have evolved into alternate new forms.

Google scholar standard[edit]

Using different "since" years on Google scholar yields about 398,000 (1992), 271,000 (1993), 335,000 (1994), 304,000 (1995), 402,000 (1996), 274,000 (1997), 347,000 (1998), 302,000 (1999), 572,000 (2000), 252,000 (2001), 286,000 (2002), 252,000 (2003), 291,000 (2004), 238,000 (2005), 275,000 (2006), 217,000 (2007), 265,000 (2008), 170,000 (2009), 357,000 (2010), 36,300 (2011), for a total of 5,844,300, suggesting that the remainder 3,515,700 are from earlier than 1992.

Using "dominant group" yields 66,700 articles, patents, and citations. The phrase "dominant group theory" yielded two: "oppositional theory – theory that incorporates a logic and rhetoric that opposes mainstream thinking and dominant group theory."[46] and "interest group pluralism replaced legal pluralism as the dominant group theory."[47].

A second search yields about 66,800, with 26,700 (1992), 25,600 (1993), 22,600 (1994), 22,500 (1995), 23,600 (1996), 22,700 (1997), 21,700 (1998), 19,300 (1999), 19,600 (2000), 18,800 (2001), 18,100 (2002), 17,500 (2003), 17,200 (2004), 17,000 (2005), 16,600 (2006), 16,000 (2007), 14,400 (2008), 10,900 (2009), 6,650 (2010), and 2,390 (2011). This suggests that the number of articles containing "dominant group" is decreasing from 1992 to 2004, with a significant increase from 2004 to present (probably mostly in sociology).

Difference table for "dominant group" (dg) articles and articles containing "the":

Changes in article numbers per year
Year Number of dg articles Number of dg per year Number of "the" articles Number of "the" per year
2012  ? 5,070  ? 227,000
2011 4,640 4,640 142,000 93,400
2010 6,650 4,260 357,000 215,000
2009 10,900 4,250 170,000 -187,000
2008 14,400 3,500 265,000 95,000
2007 16,000 1,600 217,000 -48,000
2006 16,600 600 275,000 58,000
2005 17,000 400 238,000 -37,000
2004 17,200 200 291,000 53,000
2003 17,500 300 252,000 -39,000
2002 18,100 600 286,000 34,000
2001 18,800 700 252,000 -34,000
2000 19,600 800 572,000 320,000
1999 19,300 -300 302,000 -270,000
1998 21,700 2,400 347,000 45,000
1997 22,700 1,000 274,000 -400
1996 23,600 900 402,000 55,400
1995 22,500 -1,100 304,000 -98,000
1994 22,600 1,000 335,000 31,000
1993 25,600 2,100 271,000 -64,000
1992 26,700 1,100 398,000 127,000

Funding[edit]

Obtaining funding (income to cover research costs) is important because research takes a toll on time, energy, and resources. It may not lead to profit-making yet may be valuable in its contribution to society. The results of the research or exploration that contribute to the better good of society should be made available for the public good and funded accordingly.

For exploratory research into "dominant group", its meaning and implications, funding is being sought and these efforts are included in Dominant group/Funding.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. Robert A. Donahue, Steven H. Saar, and Sallie L. Baliunas (July 1996). "A Relationship between Mean Rotation Period in Lower Main-Sequence Stars and Its Observed Range". The Astrophysical Journal 466 (7): 384-91. doi:10.1086/177517. Bibcode1996ApJ...466..384D. Retrieved on 2011-08-16. 
  2. Marshallsumter (September 24, 2011). "Requests for Deletion#Dominant group and subpages". Wikiversity: 1. Retrieved on 2011-09-28. 
  3. Jtneill (March 12, 2010). "Research proposal". Wikiversity. Retrieved on 2011-09-28. 
  4. 4.0 4.1 William Kirby, William Spence (1826). An Introduction to Entomology: or Elements of the Natural History of Insects, Volume IV. London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green, Paternoster Row. pp. 474-492. http://books.google.com/books?id=OgA7AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA485&dq=%22Kirby's+system%22+entomology+dominant&hl=en#v=onepage&q=dominant&f=false. Retrieved 2011-11-30. 
  5. Jonathan R. Topham (June 1998). "Beyond the" common context": the production and reading of the Bridgewater Treatises". Isis 89 (2): 233-62. Retrieved on 2011-12-05. 
  6. Joanna Cruickshank (April 21, 2011). "Darwin, Race and Religion in Australia". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 2012-01-03. 
  7. "universal, In: Wiktionary". San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. May 28, 2014. Retrieved 2014-06-04. 
  8. Bertrand Russel (1912). Chapter 9, In: The Problems of Philosophy. 
  9. 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 Irving M. Copi (1955). Introduction to Logic. New York: The MacMillan Company. pp. 472. 
  10. Klaus Hinkelmann, Oscar Kempthorne (2008). Design and Analysis of Experiments, Volume I: Introduction to Experimental Design (2nd ed.). Wiley. ISBN 978-0-471-72756-9. http://books.google.com/?id=T3wWj2kVYZgC&printsec=frontcover. 
  11. R. A. Bailey (2008). Design of comparative experiments. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-68357-9. http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521683579. 
  12. "Treatment and control groups, In: Wikipedia". San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. May 18, 2012. Retrieved 2012-05-31. 
  13. 13.0 13.1 NEH (April 22, 2013). "Frequently Asked Questions about NEH on Grantsdotgov". 1100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20506: National Endowment for the Humanities. Retrieved 2013-04-22. 
  14. 14.00 14.01 14.02 14.03 14.04 14.05 14.06 14.07 14.08 14.09 14.10 14.11 14.12 14.13 14.14 14.15 14.16 14.17 Peter Mark Roget (1969). Lester V. Berrey and Gorton Carruth. ed. Roget's International Thesaurus, third edition. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company. pp. 1258. 
  15. 15.0 15.1 Philip B. Gove, ed (1963). Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Company. pp. 1221. 
  16. T. Yakno, S. Zilberfaine (1996). "Interval Domain Library for ECLiPSe and Its Application, In: Constraint databases and applications: Second International Workshop on Constraint Database Systems": 316-28. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Retrieved on 2011-08-26. 
  17. David P. Hansen, Thure Etzold (November 2001). "Chapter II-1. Integrating and Accessing Molecular Biology Resources, In: Bioinformatics - From Genomes to Drugs". Weinheim, FRG: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. doi:10.1002/3527601481.ch9. Retrieved on 2011-08-03. 
  18. Stuart Albert (1998). David Allred Whetten, Paul C. Godfrey. ed. The Definition and Metadefinition of Identity, In: Identity in Organizations: Building Theory Through Conversations. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. pp. 1-16. ISBN 0-7619-0947-8. http://books.google.com/books?id=yXyV9mzTLdEC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false. Retrieved 2011-09-02. 
  19. 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 David Millet (1981). "Defining the "Dominant Group."". Canadian Ethnic Studies 13 (3): 64-79. Retrieved on 2011-07-26. 
  20. Charles Robert Darwin (1859). On the origin of the species by means of natural selection: or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray. pp. 516. http://books.google.com/books?id=_cvGifvlQiIC&dq=Darwin+1859&source=gbs_navlinks_s. 
  21. John W. Tlapek and W. D. Keller (1964). Stabilities of Three-Layer Phyllosilicates Related to Their Ionic-Covalent Bonding, In: Clays and clay minerals, Proceedings of the Twelfth National Conference on Clays and Clay Minerals. pp. 249-55. 
  22. Hugh P. Taylor Jr., Bernardino Giannetti, Bruno Turi (December 1979). "Oxygen isotope geochemistry of the potassic igneous rocks from the Roccamonfina volcano, Roman comagmatic region, Italy". Earth and Planetary Science Letters 46 (1): 81-106. doi:10.1016/0012-821X(79)90067-0. Retrieved on 2011-09-27. 
  23. 23.0 23.1 Andrew McGregor (December 2005). "Negotiating nature: exploring discourse through small group research". Area 37 (4): 423-32. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2005.00652.x. Retrieved on 2011-09-19. 
  24. Majorie Grene (1962). "The Theory of Evolution". Philosophy 37 (141): 268-72. doi:10.1017/S0031819100062021. Retrieved on 2011-09-15. 
  25. 25.0 25.1 Thomas Anderson Goudge (1961). The ascent of life: a philosophical study of the theory of evolution. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp. 242. http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=9321243. Retrieved 2011-09-15. 
  26. Janet L. Travis (September 1971). "A Criticism of the Use of the Concept of "Dominant Group" in Arguments for Evolutionary Progressivism". Philosophy of Science 38 (3): 369-75. Retrieved on 2011-07-27. 
  27. 27.00 27.01 27.02 27.03 27.04 27.05 27.06 27.07 27.08 27.09 27.10 Farlex (2009). "The Free Dictionary by Farlex: Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition". Elsevier. Retrieved 2011-09-07. 
  28. Mindspillage (July 13, 2004). "Theoretical definition". Wikipedia: 1. Retrieved on 2011-10-04. 
  29. 29.0 29.1 29.2 29.3 Ashley W. Doane Jr. (June 1997). "Dominant Group Ethnic Identity in the United States". The Sociological Quarterly 38 (3): 375-97. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1997.tb00483.x. Retrieved on 2011-08-15. 
  30. 30.0 30.1 30.2 30.3 30.4 30.5 30.6 30.7 30.8 Eric D. Knowles, Kaiping Peng (August 2005). "White selves: conceptualizing and measuring a dominant-group identity". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89 (2): 223-41. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.2.223. Retrieved on 2011-07-27. 
  31. Charles Robert Darwin (October 1902). Francis Darwin and A. C. Seward. ed. More Letters of Charles Darwin A Record of his Work in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Letters Volume I.. Cambridge. http://www.writersmugs.com/books/books.php?book=17&name=Charles_Darwin&title=MORE_LETTERS_OF_CHARLES_DARWIN. Retrieved 2011-11-18. 
  32. W.E. Shuckard (1840). "XXII.—Monograph of the Dorylidæ, a family of the Hymenoptera Heterogyna". The Annals and Magazine of Natural History Series 1 5 (30): 188-201. doi:10.1080/00222934009496804. Retrieved on 2011-11-20. 
  33. Alexis de Tocqueville (September 2001, prepared between 1853 and 1857). Francois Furet and Francoise Melonio. ed. The Old Regime and the Revolution: Notes on the French Revolution and Napoleon. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. pp. 257. http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=ctAqVkbNCkIC&dq=1857+%22Alexis+de+Tocqueville%22+%22Democracy+in+America%22&q=%22dominant+group%22#v=onepage&q&f=false. Retrieved 2011-11-20. 
  34. DGG (September 1, 2011). "Articles for deletion/Dominant group (art)". Wikipedia:Articles for deletion: 1. Retrieved on 2011-09-28. 
  35. Lazulilasher (September 1, 2011). "Articles for deletion/Dominant group (art)". Wikipedia:Articles for deletion: 1. Retrieved on 2011-09-28. 
  36. 36.0 36.1 Delmar Thomas C. Stawart, ed (June 17 2011). Dominant group. Dicho. pp. 140. ISBN 6136697343. http://www.amazon.com/Dominant-group-Delmar-Thomas-Stawart/dp/6136697343. Retrieved 2011-11-30. 
  37. 37.0 37.1 37.2 37.3 37.4 Zd. Ceplecha (1958). "On the composition of meteors". Bulletin of the Astronomical Institutes of Czechoslovakia 9: 154-9. Bibcode1958BAICz...9..154C. Retrieved on 2011-08-10. 
  38. Edward G. Cox (April 1923). "Art in a Democracy". The Sewanee Review 31 (2): 187-97. Retrieved on 2011-07-26. 
  39. M. E. Broom (October 1930). "A study of a test of ascendence-submission". Journal of Applied Psychology 14 (5): 405-13. doi:10.1037/h0074129. Retrieved on 2011-07-26. 
  40. W. I. Thomas (May 1912). "Race Psychology: Standpoint and Questionnaire, With Particular Reference to the Immigrant and the Negro". American Journal of Sociology 17 (6): 725-75. Retrieved on 2011-09-28. 
  41. 41.0 41.1 41.2 41.3 Frédéric Theunissen and John P. Miller (1995). "Temporal Encoding in Nervous Systems: A Rigorous Definition". Journal of Computational Neuroscienc 2 (2): 149-62. doi:10.1007/BF00961885. Retrieved on 2011-09-17. 
  42. 42.0 42.1 42.2 Raewyn M. Seaberg and Derek van der Kooy (March 2003). "Stem and progenitor cells: the premature desertion of rigorous definitions". Trends in Neurosciences 26 (3): 125-31. doi:10.1016/S0166-2236(03)00031-6. Retrieved on 2011-09-26. 
  43. 43.0 43.1 Rosario N. Mantegna (1999). "Hierarchical Structure in Financial Markets". The European Physical Journal B - Condensed Matter and Complex Systems 11 (1): 193-7. doi:10.1007/s100510050929. Retrieved on 2011-09-15. 
  44. 44.0 44.1 C. A. R. Hoare and N. Wirth (1973). "An axiomatic definition of the programming language PASCAL". Acta Informatica 2 (4): 335-55. doi:10.1007/BF00289504. Retrieved on 2011-09-16. 
  45. Alexander Mudroch, Ute Richter, Ulrich Joger, Ralf Kosma, Oumarou Idé, Abdoulaye Maga (February 2011). "Didactyl Tracks of Paravian Theropods (Maniraptora) from the ?Middle Jurassic of Africa". PLoS ONE 6 (2): e14642. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014642. Retrieved on 2011-09-14. 
  46. Nancy Salmon & Raewyn Bassett (2009). "Harried by Harding and Haraway: student–mentor collaboration in disability studies". Disability & Society 24 (7): 911-24. doi:10.1080/09687590903283571. Retrieved on 2011-08-31. 
  47. Dalia Tsuk (January 2005). "From Pluralism to Individualism: Berle and Means and 20th‐Century American Legal Thought". Law & Social Inquiry 30 (1): 179-225. doi:10.1111/j.1747-4469.2005.tb00349.x. Retrieved on 2011-08-31. 

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]

Template:History resources