standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| second reading | alternatives | an independent re-reading of a facet, recorded whether or not it agrees |
| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 1 relation here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim_type | null-result Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | negative visuospatial priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | behavioural-experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: behavioural-experiment | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[2] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Only one amphetamine dose was tested, so hypo- versus hypersensitivity in isolates cannot be decided. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Because many more isolates failed to reach criterion and were excluded, a priming deficit in the excluded animals could have been missed. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The task may have a ceiling that hides group differences or drug-induced increases in priming. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The proposed prefrontal monoaminergic explanation is not measured in this study. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| controls | target and non-target locations varied pseudorandomly so each location held the stimuli an equal number of times per session while remaining unpredictable trial to trial Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a location bias and an anticipation strategy at once - equal frequency removes the first, unpredictability removes the second, and the paper states both · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| controls | baseline and negative trials alternated pseudorandomly, each type equally often per session and not predictable in advance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the animal preparing for the trial type it expects next, which would make the priming effect a preparation effect · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[1] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | negative visuospatial priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: negative visuospatial priming | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | inhibitory information processing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: inhibitory information processing | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | isolation rearing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: isolation rearing | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | amphetamine Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: amphetamine | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | A NULL AGAINST THE AUTHORS' OWN HYPOTHESIS, WITH A POSITIVE CONTROL IN THE SAME ANIMALS: `In contrast with our hypothesis, however, Quotation withheld in rats, despite inducing PPI deficits consistent with various developmental and psychiatric disorders.` The manipulation demonstrably worked - prepulse inhibition was disrupted - and the measure demonstrably did not move. A null with an internal manipulation check is a different object from a null on its own, and this corpus should be able to tell them apart Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | THE SELECTION PROBLEM STATED IN THE SENTENCE THAT REPORTS THE RESULT: `Quotation withheld` The comparison runs on survivors - the isolates who got far enough to be measured - so the null holds on a sample the manipulation has already filtered. The authors put that in the abstract rather than leaving it to a reader, which is the shape this corpus wants from a limitation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | PRIMING AS AN INSTRUMENT, DECLARED IN THE FIRST SENTENCE: negative visuospatial priming `represents a quantifiable measure of inhibitory information processing that is disrupted in several neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia`. The clinical claim attaches to the PROCESS, not to the priming effect - priming is the dial, inhibition is the quantity, and the disorder is a property of the quantity. Second Amitai record where priming is a measuring device rather than a phenomenon Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | THE TITLE'S FINDING, AND IT IS A NULL INSIDE A NULL: `Quotation withheld` The drug disrupts negative priming in socially reared animals and does not in isolates - so the rearing that failed to disrupt the measure directly nonetheless changed how the measure responds to a drug. The discussion offers reduced prefrontal dopamine responsivity as the reason, hedged twice: `suggest that` and `might account for` Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | claim_type: mechanism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: null-result — note: A BLIND second reading by the project on 2026-08-25: the record's own claim type/method/phenomenon were not looked at until every value here was written and substring-verified. Not applied - a person decides. Sampling frame: the 504 staged records carrying no alternatives block, so this never re-measures the 202. All 11 records with 130+ tags were taken as a census and 19 more spread one per discipline across 22 disciplines - the dense non-neuroscience cell is the one the 202 do not contain (inside them, 94-100% of the densest bands are neuroscience; among these 11, one is)., | alternatives.claim_type | 0.7 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | method: behavioural-experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: behavioural-experiment — note: A BLIND second reading by the project on 2026-08-25: the record's own claim type/method/phenomenon were not looked at until every value here was written and substring-verified. Not applied - a person decides. Sampling frame: the 504 staged records carrying no alternatives block, so this never re-measures the 202. All 11 records with 130+ tags were taken as a census and 19 more spread one per discipline across 22 disciplines - the dense non-neuroscience cell is the one the 202 do not contain (inside them, 94-100% of the densest bands are neuroscience; among these 11, one is)., | alternatives.method | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | phenomenon: negative visuospatial priming as a measure of inhibitory information processing, and its resistance to amphetamine in isolation-reared rats Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: negative visuospatial priming — note: A BLIND second reading by the project on 2026-08-25: the record's own claim type/method/phenomenon were not looked at until every value here was written and substring-verified. Not applied - a person decides. Sampling frame: the 504 staged records carrying no alternatives block, so this never re-measures the 202. All 11 records with 130+ tags were taken as a census and 19 more spread one per discipline across 22 disciplines - the dense non-neuroscience cell is the one the 202 do not contain (inside them, 94-100% of the densest bands are neuroscience; among these 11, one is)., | alternatives.phenomenon | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | replicates → Amitai et al., 2013 (the rat negative-priming task and its disruption by amphetamine) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Amitai et al., 2013 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | isolation rearing —causes→ negative visuospatial priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: no-change · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: A NULL RECORDED AS A DIRECTION, and this one is safe to record that way - unlike Takarada2018, the authors state the null as their finding and contrast it with their own hypothesis rather than hedging it later. The 'despite inducing PPI deficits' clause is inside the quote because without it the null is uninterpretable. also in: isolation rearing · negative visuospatial priming | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | chi-squared Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: chi-squared | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: t-test | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: t-test | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | statistical-significance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: statistical-significance | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Fewer isolation-reared rats learned the task, but those that did showed negative priming no different from socially reared rats. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | D-amphetamine impaired negative priming and raised motor impulsivity in socially reared rats. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | D-amphetamine left negative priming and motor impulsivity unaffected in isolation-reared rats. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Significantly fewer isolation-reared than socially reared rats reached criterion performance in Experiment 1, showing a learning deficit for this complex task. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Amphetamine abolished negative priming by selectively lowering accuracy on baseline trials rather than by changing accuracy on negative trials. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Because the same isolates showed prepulse-inhibition deficits but intact negative priming, the two inhibitory-processing measures are dissociable. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | negative priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: negative priming | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | inhibitory information processing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: inhibitory information processing | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | accuracy priming value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: accuracy priming value | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | negative trials Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: negative trials | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | baseline trials Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: baseline trials | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | drug treatment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: drug treatment | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | trial type Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: trial type | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | prime stimulus duration Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime stimulus duration | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | accuracy priming value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: accuracy priming value | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | premature responses Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: premature responses | content_tags.variables[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ISI responses Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ISI responses | content_tags.variables[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | n = 23 socials and n = 14 isolates — Final animal numbers analysed in Experiment 1 after exclusions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | n = 19 socials and n = 18 isolates — Final animal numbers analysed in the amphetamine experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 0.25 mg/kg — Subcutaneous D-amphetamine dose used in the drug challenge Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Fifty-five — Total number of male Long-Evans rats weaned into the study Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 33.3 % — Chance accuracy level in the three-aperture task, which drugged animals still exceeded Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | F (1, 35) = 24.4, p < 0.001 — Main effect of amphetamine on the number of premature responses Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[5] | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.