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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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.| 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 |
| 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.
This record holds no controls. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim_type | existence 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 | benefits of advanced mathematics education 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 | review Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: review | 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 | |
| limitations | The paper's central term is never defined, only exemplified by naming school subjects, so every conclusion about it is a conclusion about whichever courses carry those names. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any claim in this paper about 'advanced mathematics': the term is never defined, and the closest the paper comes is naming calculus, linear algebra and statistics as its content | limitations[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Three results on the same question, by the same author, point in different directions and are printed one after another without being reconciled. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the direction of the gender difference reported here: within one paragraph boys' mean scores are said to surpass girls' (Mansory, 2010) and girls are said to perform generally better (Mansory, 2007), with no reconciliation offered | limitations[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The mechanisms offered for the parental-background findings are the paper's own speculation, marked as such by its hedges, and are stated in the same breath as the findings. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the parental-background explanations: the paper attributes better arithmetic to shopkeeper fathers 'potentially due to practical learning experiences' and lower achievement to educated fathers 'possibly due to' busy schedules -- both hedged, neither tested | limitations[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The whole of the paper's stated method is that it delves into the advantages; no search, no inclusion criteria and no data are described. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: this paper as a review: its only statement of what was done is that it delves into the advantages of learning advanced mathematics, with no search or selection criteria given | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | advanced mathematics Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: advanced mathematics | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | quantitative literacy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: quantitative literacy | concepts[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | mathematical achievement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mathematical achievement | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | self-confidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: self-confidence | concepts[3] | the paper's words | |
| senses | advanced mathematics - NEVER DEFINED, ONLY EXEMPLIFIED: given as the content of calculus, linear algebra and statistics rather than by any property that would decide a borderline case Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | mathematical achievement vs confidence - STATED TO COME APART: girls report lower confidence while the paper reports no substantial gender difference in achievement itself Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | self-confidence - BOUNDED ON BOTH SIDES: too little is treated as a barrier and too much as its own difficulty, so the paper does not treat more confidence as simply better Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | qualifies → Dweck (2000) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: WHETHER MORE CONFIDENCE IS ALWAYS BETTER. The paper treats low confidence as a barrier and then bounds the other end: 'Quotation withheld, as overly confident students may struggle when confronted with difficult situations.' A variable bounded on both sides has no direction of improvement, so an intervention that raises it cannot be evaluated without knowing where a learner started | claim_relations[0] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Gray (1996) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE POPULATION THE FINDING IS SCOPED TO, WHICH THE SENTENCE STATES TWICE. 'Research in the US shows that students who receive parental support in mathematical activities perform better, irrespective of gender' - a country in the subject and a gender-independence claim in the predicate. Both are conditions of the result and both are the kind of clause a downstream citation drops | claim_relations[1] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | qualifies → Mushtaq (2013) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: WHERE THE QUESTION IS ASKED. Immediately after the gender-independent US result: 'However, in certain societies such as Afghanistan, girls' math performance can be affected by multiple factors, including parental background and encouragement, CULTURAL IMPACTS, socioeconomic circumstances, and self-assurance.' The same question about the same relation gets different answers in two countries, and the two sentences sit adjacent with only a 'however' between them | claim_relations[2] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | self-confidence —distinct-from→ mathematical achievement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'confidence in their mathematical aptitude', not 'self-confidence'. also in: self-confidence · mathematical achievement | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The article concludes that studying higher-level mathematics brings advantages reaching far beyond mathematics itself. 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 | It claims that advanced mathematics works by forcing students into critical, abstract and logical thinking. 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 | It reports that young women show lower confidence in their mathematical ability than young men even where achievement does not differ by gender. 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 | It reports that collaborative activities are more beneficial for female students. 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 | It reports that parental support in mathematical activity is associated with better student performance regardless of gender. 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 |
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.