As of May, 2013, there were 1057 items tagged in the NLCSA database with some set of the 275 different tags. The distribution of assigned tags provides an overview of the contents.

The tags assigned will change in the future, especially with the extension of tagging to videos and the addition of more video materials. It is also quite likely that some judgments about the appropriateness of tags to specific data items will be changed. That said, nonetheless it seems worthwhile to extract these numbers from the SK Multi Tag plugin facility. (You can verify any of these numbers by hovering your mouse over the tag in the left sidebar.)

Of the 1055 data items, 916 are tagged as vignettes; 177 video clips are mentioned (some in text, as a cross reference). Eleven items are based on recall and 9 are speculations.

Distributions of Tags for Time:

• (by years, for all three subjects) Y1 174; Y2 276; Y3 301 ; Y4 124 ; Y5 21 ; Y6 143 ; Y7 61 ; Y8 44 ;
  The breakout by years reflect the differing lengths of the three studies, as well as the “atomizing” of data items in the infant study (See “Reference”, below).

• LC1, 102 tags; LC2, 157; LC3, 889. Of the items related to LC2 and LC3, 22 were before the intimate Study, 116 during it, and 29 following.
• Tagging through 31 quarters ranges from zero (quarter Q20) to 102 in Q9.

Distributions of Tags for Subject Focus:

Distributions of Tags by Character of the Item:
A few (5) are tagged as Impressions (Imp). 604 involve evaluation (Evl) of the subject’s actions or thinking. Almost 400 involve “close-time” interpretation (Int). And 480 can serve as examples or evidence (Evd).

Distributions of Tags by the Types of Ideas Involved:
Three notions (Ntn) are usually mentioned for later observation or reflection
24 ideas are singled out. Over 300 Micro-theories (MT) are tagged, but this number will certainly decline as more rigorous standards are applied; some MT tags will be converted into Idea tags. And 18 are tagged as making judgments among alternatives.

Data Item Reference:
The protocols and vignettes of LC1 and LC2, though aiming towards simplicity, became as complicated a required. With LC3 focused on an infant developing into a toddler and young girl, the data was often simpler, so the vignettes would be expected to be simpler. Then too, they were often written by by the child’s mother, Gretchen, whose style was different from mine. Finally, one goal of the mentioned “atomization” of data items was to simplify reference. Since generally each vignette of LC3 refers to a single data item, the incident / episode has been assigned its unique name. The advantage should lead to economy and specificity of reference. For example, for LC2 one can refer to one knock-knock joke “in paragraph 4 of Vn035.01” or to another as 3V0935.5.

Similarly, in the aim of standardizing reference, and given the need to disambiguate references seen as relevant to either LC2 or LC1, it would be simplest to adopt a referential-naming convention like that in the Infant Peggy Study, where the Vignette-names, e.g. 3Vn0935.05, encode the subject of interest (3 for LC3’s subject Peggy), the item type (Vn for vignette), item number (935) and serial number within the day in question (.05). In the case of Vignette 17B of The Intimate Study, for example, if the focus were to be on Rob and LC1, it wold be 1Vn017B. Were the focus on Miriam, it would be 2Vn017B. I will start using this convention and see if it proves useful. (If it causes confusion, I will drop it.)

Finally, on review of the size of these tag-based collections, I have set the maximum number of tagged items to be shown on a page at 100. Temporarily, I have set the reading parameter to complete documents in archives produced by tag-sorts since each document’s title in the tag-sort archive is a direct link to the full document. Currently, archives produced by literal-string searches return excerpts; documents references can be accessed directly by links.

Z-tag: indicates some problem with the data item. I could, of course, Z-tag every item that has null content, but there is no point in doing so, since they are kept in the archive for the sake of accuracy of indices and for “full disclosure.”