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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| 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 2 relations here carries 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 | continuous learning intention in STEAM 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 | 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 | |
| limitations | The paper flags its own limitations explicitly before listing them. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the paper's own framing: DESPITE THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THIS STUDY, SEVERAL LIMITATIONS REMAIN TO BE ADDRESSED | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The sample comes from a single region of Taiwan. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the population the result speaks for: A SAMPLE OF STUDENTS FROM ONLY ONE REGION OF TAIWAN | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Variables linking AI-based STEM education to employability were not modelled. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any employability claim: THE LONG-STANDING UNSOLVED PROBLEM OF AI-BASED EDUCATION IN STEM STUDIES AND EMPLOYABILITY NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED WITH OTHER POSSIBLE VARIABLES | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Generalisation across two very different populations is established by the ABSENCE of a significant difference, which is an acceptance of the null. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the claim that this model holds for both elementary and university students: it rests on finding no significant difference between the two groups, not on a test of equivalence | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Items were removed from the model until the validity thresholds were satisfied, so the thresholds were met partly by deletion. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the reported validity statistics: items were extracted from the model, after which all values exceeded the minimum threshold | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Participation was voluntary and recruitment happened in class after the activity, so the sample is self-selected among those who had just taken part. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: this sample as representative of STEAM learners: students were recruited in the classroom after their learning activities and participated voluntarily | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | cognitive load theory, originally developed from short-term memory experiments, is imported as the cognitive-domain measure in a STEAM education acceptance model 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 | |
| controls | the same learning topic used in both STEAM activities, with the materials made harder for the university group and easier for the elementary group Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a difference between the two populations that is really a difference in whether they could follow the material at all - the topic is held constant and the difficulty is matched to each · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the same questionnaire administered after both activities, in the university and in the elementary school Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: an instrument effect - two different questionnaires would make the two settings incomparable whatever the activities did · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[1] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | cognitive load Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cognitive load | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | mental effort Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mental effort | concepts[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | discriminant validity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: discriminant validity | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | mental load Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mental load | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | ARCS Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ARCS | concepts[4] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| senses | cognitive load - operationalised here as TWO components, mental load and mental effort, inside a model that also carries technology-acceptance and motivation constructs 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 | generalization - established by a NON-SIGNIFICANT group difference rather than by sampling both populations to a defined standard 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 | `cognitive load` - A TWO-PART PARTITION WHOSE HALVES ARE EASILY CONFLATED, AND THIS PAPER KEEPS THEM APART. `Quotation withheld` The names differ by one word and both read as `how hard it feels`. The distinction is between what the TASK imposes and what the LEARNER expends, and a corpus that carries only one of the two - as this record did - silently makes `cognitive load` mean whichever half it kept. 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 | `ARCS` - AN ACRONYM WHOSE LETTERS ARE ITS PARTITION, LIKE `WEIRD` IN `henrich2010`. `Quotation withheld.` The name cannot drift from its content because the content spells the name - and the same sentence then gives `satisfaction` a SECOND abbreviation, `SAT`, so one construct carries two acronyms at different levels. 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 |
| claim_relations | extends → Weng et al. (2018) 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 → Davis, 1989; Davis et al., 1989 (TAM) 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 | mental effort —part-of→ cognitive load 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: mental effort · cognitive load | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | mental load —part-of→ cognitive load 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 · note: 'consists of' is the containment cue, and it is in the gate's list - so unlike most of tonight's edges this one is actually cue-tested. Direction: the whole is named first here, the parts second, which is the 'CONTAINER_FIRST' order. also in: mental load · cognitive load | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | structural equation modelling (partial least squares) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | confirmatory factor analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: confirmatory factor analysis | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Cronbach's alpha Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Cronbach's alpha | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | composite reliability and average variance extracted Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | bootstrap Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: bootstrap | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | variance inflation factor (multicollinearity check) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | coefficient of determination Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: coefficient of determination | content_tags.statistics[6] | 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[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | multi-group comparison test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: multi-group comparison test | content_tags.statistics[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | goodness-of-fit residual index Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: goodness-of-fit residual index | content_tags.statistics[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Perceived usability had a direct positive effect on continuous learning intention and also strengthened the link between learning attitude and intention. 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 | Cognitive load had a significant negative direct effect on perceived usability (B = -0.32), so lower load meant higher perceived usability. 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 | ARCS motivation had a positive and significant effect on learning attitude (B = 0.48). 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 | Both moderation terms were significant: perceived usability moderated attitude to intention (B = 0.104) and ARCS moderated perceived usability to attitude (B = 0.082). 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 attitude-to-intention relationship was steeper for learners with high perceived usability than for those with low perceived usability. 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 | The core TAM paths were supported: perceived usability to attitude (B = 0.41) and attitude to intention (B = 0.34). 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 | None of the model's paths differed significantly between the elementary-school and university subsamples, so the model held for both age groups. 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 | The structural model fitted the data well, with SRMR of 0.069 and RMS_theta of 0.16. 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 | continuous learning intention Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: continuous learning intention | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | perceived usability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: perceived usability | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | cognitive load Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cognitive load | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | STEAM learning cycle Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: STEAM learning cycle | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ARCS model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ARCS model | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Mental load Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Mental load | content_tags.definitions[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | mental effort Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mental effort | content_tags.definitions[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | cognitive load Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cognitive load | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | continuous learning intention Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: continuous learning intention | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | learning attitude Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: learning attitude | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ARCS motivation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ARCS motivation | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | perceived usability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: perceived usability | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 145 — questionnaire responses collected, of which 141 were valid 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 | 84 undergraduate students and 57 elementary students — composition of the voluntary survey sample 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 | 7-point Likert scale — response format of the 52-item instrument (24 TAM, 8 cognitive load, 20 ARCS items) 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 | B = − 0.32, p < 0.01 — path coefficient from cognitive load to perceived usability 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 | B = 0.48, p < 0.01 — path coefficient from ARCS motivation to learning attitude 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 | B = 0.104, t-value = 3.13, p = 0.002 — interaction (moderation) effect of perceived usability on the attitude-intention path 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 | |
| content_tags | 0.069 — SRMR value for the saturated model, indicating acceptable fit Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 0.96 — Cronbach's alpha for the perceived usability construct Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[7] | 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.