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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| 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 |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
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; 1 of 6 relations here carries 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | Operant conditioning as a process and as an experimental paradigm - how behaviour is selected by its consequences. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| research_question | What is the relation between behaviour and its consequences, and how far does the analogy with natural selection actually carry? Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | Sets out operant conditioning as ontogenetic selection - behaviour varied then selected by reinforcement - and flags that the variation half of the analogy has gone unstudied. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | critique 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 | operant conditioning 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 | |
| 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 | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[4] | 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. duplicate of: mechanisms[0] | mechanisms[5] | 1.0 | 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[6] | 1.0 | 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[7] | 1.0 | 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[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The theoretical account is incomplete by the article's own statement - the empirical space is mapped, the mechanism is not. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the mechanistic account: EXACTLY HOW ALL THIS WORKS IS STILL NOT UNDERSTOOD IN FULL THEORETICAL DETAIL, though the empirical space is mapped | limitations[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | A century of research has studied selection and not variation: where the first successful response comes from is unexamined. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the scope of the whole research programme: OMITTED IS ANY DISCUSSION OF WHERE THE SUCCESSFUL RESPONSE COMES FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE - selection is studied, variation is not | limitations[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The framework that organised the field is described as not really a theory. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any use of the Skinnerian framework as an explanatory theory: SKINNER'S 'THEORY' WAS MORE AN ORGANIZING FRAMEWORK THAN A TRUE THEORY | limitations[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | The credit-assignment problem is taken over from AI and made the central question that an operant conditioning process must answer Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | the tagger's words | |
| transfers | Darwin's natural selection is imported as the model for operant conditioning, with reinforcement as the selective agent acting on a variable repertoire of emitted acts Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[1] | the tagger's words | |
| transfers | The reinforcement-learning framework is adopted as the normative account within which both Pavlovian and operant behaviour are interpreted Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[2] | the tagger's words | |
| transfers | Darwinian selection from a varied population, imported to explain how one behaviour is picked out of an emitted repertoire by reinforcement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | operant conditioning Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: operant conditioning | concepts[0] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | instrumental conditioning Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: instrumental conditioning | concepts[1] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | ontogenetic selection Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ontogenetic selection | concepts[2] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | phylogenetic selection Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: phylogenetic selection | concepts[3] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Pavlovian conditioning Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Pavlovian conditioning | concepts[4] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | reinforcer Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: reinforcer | concepts[5] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | punisher Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: punisher | concepts[6] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | contingency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: contingency | concepts[7] | 0.85 | the paper's words |
| concepts | natural selection Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: natural selection | concepts[8] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| senses | selection - ontogenetic: consequences shaping behaviour within one animal's lifetime 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 | selection - phylogenetic: consequences shaping a species over evolutionary time 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 | conditioning - operant: the animal has control, and outcomes are contingent on its behaviour 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 |
| senses | conditioning - Pavlovian: the animal only observes, and no response is required for the outcome Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 1.0 | 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: critique — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.claim_type | the tagger's words | |
| alternatives | method: review 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: review — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.method | the tagger's words | |
| alternatives | phenomenon: selection of behaviour by its consequences within the lifetime of an individual 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: operant conditioning — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.phenomenon | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | contradicts → Herrnstein's matching law (Richard Herrnstein, 1961), as a general law relating response rate to reinforcement rate 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 → Thorndike's Law of Effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | contradicts → Skinner's framework as a theory in the ordinary sense Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | instrumental conditioning —same-as→ operant conditioning Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: instrumental conditioning · operant conditioning | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | ontogenetic selection —same-as→ operant conditioning Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: ontogenetic selection · operant conditioning | concept_edges[1] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · operant conditioning —distinct-from→ Pavlovian conditioning Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. EVIDENCE CORRECTED: RE-GROUNDED. The old span states the difference but names the wrong term for one end - that '…in CLASSICAL conditioning no…' response is required, unlike operant conditioning. The edge's endpoint is Pavlovian conditioning, and the span says CLASSICAL, which is the same thing under another name and therefore attests nothing for that endpoint. The replacement names both terms as the edge does AND gives the basis of the distinction: 'BETWEEN PAVLOVIAN…' conditioning, resting on whether the animal only observes the relations between events. Both spans carry a differentiation cue - 'unlike' and 'distinct' - so this is not a trade of strength for form; the new one simply uses the vocabulary the edge does. — strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but endpoint by synonym: the span writes 'classical conditioning', which the previous sentence introduces as Pavlovian conditioning; the contrast is stated. also in: operant conditioning · Pavlovian conditioning | concept_edges[2] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | reinforcer —contrasted-with→ punisher Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: reinforcer · punisher | concept_edges[4] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | reinforcer —part-of→ contingency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span describes reinforcement contingencies; part-of is loose. also in: reinforcer · contingency | concept_edges[5] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | operant conditioning —distinct-from→ Pavlovian conditioning Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · the relation stated: The distinction between Pavlovian and operant conditioning therefore rests on also in: operant conditioning · Pavlovian conditioning | concept_edges[6] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Adding free food pellets that arrive independently of lever pressing makes the rat press less, not more. 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 | Matching can be seen as a result of the negative-feedback properties of the concurrent variable-interval schedule in which it is measured. 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 | Matching depends on the animal's switching history: pigeons trained on each option separately and only then given the choice abandon matching and respond exclusively to the richer schedule. 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 | That steady-state behaviour is often reversible does not mean the animal's state is equally reversible. 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 | The field concentrated almost entirely on how reinforcement strengthens behaviour and neglected where the reinforced behaviour comes from in the first place — the problem of behavioural variation. 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 | Research of the last two decades has convincingly shown that both stimulus-response and action-outcome control structures exist. 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 | In autoshaping, a pigeon is likely to keep pecking the key even when pecking removes the food. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Much evidence suggests dopamine provides basal ganglia targets with a reward prediction error that can influence learning and action selection. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Because simple operant behaviour occurs even in bacteria, the essentials of operant conditioning need not depend on specific neural structures. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Behaviour guided by consequences is universal across animals, from protists to humans. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Adding reward that is NOT contingent on the response reduces responding - the animal tracks predictiveness, not frequency of pairing. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | The field's own gap, stated plainly: research has studied how responses are strengthened and almost never where they come from. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Early neo-behaviourists were led to an exponential learning curve and a learning principle of the form V(t+1) = A(1-V(t)). Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | assignment of credit Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: assignment of credit | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Yerkes-Dodson law Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Yerkes-Dodson law | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | interval schedule Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: interval schedule | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ratio schedule Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ratio schedule | content_tags.definitions[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | matching law Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: matching law | content_tags.definitions[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | habitual behavior Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: habitual behavior | content_tags.definitions[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | operant conditioning Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: operant conditioning | content_tags.definitions[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | ontogenetic selection Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ontogenetic selection | content_tags.definitions[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | reinforcer Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: reinforcer | content_tags.definitions[14] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | punisher Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: punisher | content_tags.definitions[15] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | response rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: response rate | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | reinforcement delay, rate and contingency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.variables[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | response strength Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: response strength | content_tags.variables[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | twice — How much faster rats press the lever on the richer RI15 schedule than on the leaner RI30 schedule, illustrating matching 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 | V(t+1) = A(1-V(t)) — the neo-behaviourist exponential learning rule, with V response strength and A a learning rate below one Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[1] | 1.0 | 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.