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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| 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 3 relations 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 | mechanism 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 | long-term semantic 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. status: the paper's own words: we propose that | 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 | The evaluation operations manipulated in the two experiments were not equivalent, so the operations themselves - not the semantic content - may have produced the difference in priming. 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 | The manipulation of content evaluations could not be made isomorphic across the two experiments. 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 | Participants may have used one shared strategy for both synonym and antonym decisions, and the authors have no data to rule this out. 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 question is not settled by these two experiments and needs a wider range of stimuli, task demands and prime-target lags. 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 | a separate set of 64 stimulus groups was built to serve as filler trials, separating prime trials from target trials Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the priming effect is carried by adjacency - that prime and target are simply consecutive · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | long-term semantic priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: long-term semantic priming | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | semantic memory representations Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: semantic memory representations | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | memory for prior cognitive operations Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | word meanings Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: word meanings | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | category membership Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: category membership | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | TWO RIVAL MECHANISMS, TWENTY YEARS APART, STATED AS ALTERNATIVES: `Quotation withheld.` One says the concept got stronger; the other says the subject remembers what they did. They are not degrees of the same account - one is about the representation and the other about the act - and until this paper the literature had been arguing which 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 | AND THE ANSWER IS NEITHER - IT IS BOTH, SPLIT BY CONTENT: `Quotation withheld.` A dissociation inside a phenomenon the field had treated as one thing, told apart only by varying the material while holding the task constant. This is the corpus's own thesis arriving as somebody else's empirical result: one term, two mechanisms, and no way to see it without the manipulation 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 | THE DESIGN POINT IS THE SAME ONE erb2019 MAKES, ONE RECORD APART: `Quotation withheld.` The earlier literature compared mechanisms across experiments differing in more than the variable of interest. Two consecutive records now say a body of results is uninterpretable because a confound was not held constant - erb2019 about associative-priming overlap, this about task differences - and neither is a critique paper. Both are ordinary empirical papers that had to clear the ground before they could ask anything 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 | AND THE ASYMMETRY IS EXPLAINED RATHER THAN NAMED - A CATEGORY HAS A LABEL AND A SYNONYM PAIR DOES NOT. Evaluating whether roses and carnations share a category activates `flower`, and the next trial repeats that same evaluation against that same label; but `Quotation withheld.` There is no operation to repeat, so only strengthening is left. The mechanism is derived from the structure of the material rather than fitted to the result, which is what makes it a prediction for the next study rather than a description of this one Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Woltz (2010) and Woltz et al. (2015) 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 | replicates → Woltz and Was (2007) 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 | |
| claim_relations | contradicts → Woltz and Was (2007) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | semantic memory representations —causes→ long-term semantic priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: increases · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: ONE OF TWO MECHANISMS, AND THE EDGE IS ONLY TRUE IN ONE CONTENT DOMAIN. The quote says 'Long-term semantic priming of word meanings was dependent on' this - not long-term priming generally. Read alone this edge overstates; read with its twin below it is the paper's finding. The 'moderates' gap again: the content domain conditions which mechanism applies and there is no way to say so on an edge, so it is said in the note and quoted whole in the second sense. Weight 0.9. | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | memory for prior cognitive operations —causes→ long-term semantic priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: increases · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: THE OTHER MECHANISM, on the same sentence and at the same weight, and the pair is the point. This one holds for CATEGORY MEMBERSHIP only - and the fourth sense explains why, from the structure of the material: a category has a label that the same evaluation is repeated against, and a synonym pair has nothing to repeat. Recording either edge without the other would turn a dissociation into a claim about the phenomenon as a whole, which is the thing this paper exists to refute. | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | word meanings —contrasted-with→ category membership Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: THE CONTRAST IS THE INSTRUMENT. These two content domains are not being compared for their own sake - varying them while holding the task constant is what made the two mechanisms separable, and the previous literature could not do it because it varied the task as well (third sense). Weight 0.95: the contrast is explicit in the quote and it is the paper's whole design.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the two kinds of priming depend on different memory processes; contrasted-with between the stimuli is loose. also in: word meanings · category membership | concept_edges[2] | 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 | power analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: power analysis | 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 | effect size Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: effect size | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | confidence interval Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: confidence interval | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | mean Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mean | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Across two structurally matched experiments, long-term semantic priming turned out to rest on different memory processes depending on the kind of semantic content being processed. 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 | Priming of word meanings rested on strengthened abstract semantic representations, whereas priming of category membership rested on memory for the cognitive operations performed earlier. 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 | In the category experiment, facilitation was larger when the prime trial required the same evaluation (exemplar or feature) as the target trial. 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 | Category priming survived, though reduced, when prime and target operations differed, indicating a general rise in availability of category information on top of the operation-specific component. 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 | In the word-meaning experiment, matching versus mismatching the synonym/antonym evaluation across prime and target made no difference to the size of priming. 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 | Both experiments produced semantic priming that persisted over an average of seven unrelated intervening trials. 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 | Priming measured in response rate was larger for category comparisons than for word-meaning comparisons. 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 | Strategic processing did not produce larger priming effects as the experiment progressed. 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 | semantic priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: semantic priming | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | rate of correct responses (RCR) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: rate of correct responses (RCR) | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | expectancy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: expectancy | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | prime condition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime condition | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | evaluation operation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: evaluation operation | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | rate of correct responses (RCR) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: rate of correct responses (RCR) | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | assignment of stimulus set Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: assignment of stimulus set | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | prime-target lag Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime-target lag | content_tags.variables[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | response time Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: response time | content_tags.variables[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | percentage of errors Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: percentage of errors | content_tags.variables[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 90 — participants in each experiment (Experiment 1: 68 female, 22 male) 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 | F(1,84) = 62.18 — overall category priming effect in Experiment 1, primed versus unprimed target trials 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 | F(1,84) = 34.53 — effect of whether the prime trial used the same evaluation operation as the target trial, in Experiment 1 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 | F(1,84) = 5.97, p = .017 — overall word-meaning priming effect in Experiment 2, much smaller than the category effect 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 | Seventy-two — category stimulus groups built for Experiment 1, each with target stimuli and two prime sets 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 | t(89) = 6.42, d = .57 — priming effect for category evaluations in the first six trials, compared with d = .20 in the last six 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.