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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| unrecordable relation | unhoused_relations | a relation the paper asserts that this vocabulary cannot express, with the reason |
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 4 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 | responding under interval schedules of reinforcement 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 | A function these authors published earlier was fitted to the group average rather than to any animal. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the earlier published power function: the authors state it was fitted | limitations[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | That earlier published function is stated not to fit the data of individual animals. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the earlier power function applied to any individual pigeon: the authors state it does not fit individual data | limitations[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The choice between two candidate functional forms was made on a priori grounds rather than on which fitted the data better. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the published functional form as an empirical result: the authors state the choice rested on logical considerations rather than superiority of fit | limitations[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Individual differences between animals are large enough that the authors say a unified quantitative analysis would not survive comparison across them. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: pooling or comparing the quantitative results across pigeons: the authors state | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Deriving a single function across all animals is stated to be complicated by the idiosyncratic character of each animal's data. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: a single reinforcement-responding function covering all pigeons: the paper says the derivation is complicated by each pigeon's idiosyncratic data | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Whether the variable-interval and fixed-interval functions share a form is stated to be undecidable from the data presented. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any claim that the VI and FI functions share a form: the paper states this cannot be decided from the figure presented | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Several quantitative extensions are placed outside the paper's scope. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the quantitative details and their coordination across schedule types: the paper places these beyond its scope | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | AND THE AUTHORS LATER USE THAT ARBITRARINESS AGAINST THEIR OWN RESULT: `Quotation withheld`. A DEFINITIONAL CHOICE DECLARED ARBITRARY WHEN IT IS MADE AND THEN CITED AS A REASON TO DISCOUNT A FINDING THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND CHARACTERS LATER. The same paper does it a third time near the end - `the computation of local rates of reinforcement is most arbitrary at early and late times after reinforcement` - so the qualification is tracked, not mentioned once and forgotten. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| controls | arithmetic variable-interval schedules run with and without a 0-second interreinforcement interval, compared directly within the present experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the 0-second interval as the source of the local response-rate pattern - the two schedules are the same arithmetic VI otherwise · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | local rate of reinforcement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: local rate of reinforcement | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | overall rate of reinforcement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: overall rate of reinforcement | concepts[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | rate of responding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: rate of responding | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | 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 | concepts[3] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | local rate of reinforcement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: PAGE FURNITURE IS SPLICED INTO THE QUOTE - the page number and the running head, '342 A. CHARLES CATANIA and G. S. REYNOLDS', between 'successive op-' and the rest of the word. The words on either side of it were never continuous on the page; read the quote with it deleted. also in: local rate of reinforcement | concepts[4] | 1.0 | the paper's words |
| concepts | opportunity for reinforcement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: opportunity for reinforcement | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Reinforcements per opportunity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Reinforcements per opportunity | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | terminal rate of responding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: terminal rate of responding | concepts[7] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| unhoused_relations | temporal separation → time since reinforcement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. THE TWO CANNOT BE SEPARATED IN THIS STUDY - the DESIGN form / It bounds what the paper's own results can mean, and it lives in a methods paragraph where nothing downstream will find it. A 1968 methods sentence naming its own confound, in a paper nobody would search for it in. | unhoused_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| senses | rate of reinforcement - the overall rate a schedule provides, which the paper concludes is NOT what determines responding 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 | rate of reinforcement - the local rate at a particular time within an interval, which the paper concludes is what responding tracks 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 | rate of responding - a quantity that changes within a single interval, not a single value per schedule 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 | 'local rate of reinforcement' - AN OPERATIONAL DEFINITION ITS OWN AUTHORS CALL ARBITRARY, WITH THE REJECTED ALTERNATIVES NAMED: other assignments of time to opportunities are 'possible, SUCH AS BISECTION ... using the geometric rather than the arithmetic mean, or the assignment to a given opportunity of the time since the last opportunity. The present technique, though arbitrary, seems to involve the simplest ad hoc assumptions.' The choice is defended on SIMPLICITY, not on correctness, and the competitors are printed so a reader can substitute one. This record already distinguishes the overall rate of reinforcement from the local one; this is the further fact that the local one is a construct with a dial on it. 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 |
| senses | `Reinforcements per opportunity` - A NAME SHAPED LIKE A RATE THAT DENOTES A PROBABILITY. `Quotation withheld` The `X per Y` form is how this literature writes rates (`reinforcements per hour` appears in the same paper), so the name invites the reader to expect a count over a denominator and delivers a bounded probability instead. The definition is explicit precisely because the name is misleading. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `opportunity for reinforcement` - THE DEFINITION IS A DISJUNCTION, AND THE TWO LIMBS ARE NOT THE SAME TEST. `a point on the continuum of time since reinforcement at which the probability of reinforcement is greater than zero, or at which at least one interval ends.` The first limb is a property of the schedule; the second is a property of the sample of intervals actually run. They coincide in the limit and can differ in a finite experiment. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[5] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | qualifies → Reynolds and Catania (1961); Catania and Reynolds (1963) — the authors' own earlier publication Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: WHETHER THE FUNCTION IS FITTED TO A GROUP OR TO AN ANIMAL, AND WHY THE FORM WAS CHOSEN. Two admissions in one passage: 'The choice between these two functions was based more on logical considerations ... than on the superiority of the fit of the power function to the data', and 'Quotation withheld' The published law was fitted to the group average, chosen on a priori grounds rather than fit, and fails on every individual - said by its own authors | claim_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | qualifies → Reynolds and Catania (1962); Reynolds (1966); Stubbs (1968) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: CAPACITY VERSUS CONTROL. 'the performances maintained by FI schedules do not appear to be as well under the control of time since reinforcement as the capacity of the pigeon to discriminate durations would suggest.' What an animal CAN discriminate and what its behaviour IS controlled by come apart, so a discrimination result does not license an inference about what governs performance | claim_relations[1] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Millenson (1966); Anger (1956) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: WHAT AN UNEXPECTED DIRECTION OF CHANGE IS TAKEN TO SHOW. Inter-response times shorten 'even in schedules of reinforcement in which long IRTs are differentially reinforced', i.e. against the contingency, and the literature's reading is a property of the reinforcement process itself - 'that short IRTs are more susceptible to reinforcement than long IRTs'. A behaviour that moves opposite to the arranged contingency is explained by postulating an asymmetry in what reinforcement can act on | claim_relations[2] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · local rate of reinforcement —distinct-from→ overall rate of reinforcement 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 stated a conclusion without naming either rate. This sentence names both AND DISTINGUISHES THEM BY EXPERIMENT: '…while the overall rate of reinforcement is held constant…' - one is held fixed while the other moves, which is the strongest form a distinction can take: not observed, but constructed. — strength of the relation: 1 | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | local rate of reinforcement —causes→ rate of responding 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 also in: local rate of reinforcement · rate of responding | concept_edges[1] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | terminal rate of responding —part-of→ rate of responding 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 · note: The terminal rate is the local rate AT A PARTICULAR MOMENT - a restriction of the general measure, which is why 'part-of' and not 'is-a'. also in: terminal rate of responding · rate of responding | concept_edges[3] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | overall rate of reinforcement —causes→ terminal rate of responding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.7 · note: DIRECTION CHECKED AGAINST THE SENTENCE, AND MY FIRST VERSION HAD IT BACKWARDS. 'INCREASED AS the overall…' - the reinforcement rate is what the SCHEDULE SETS and the responding is what the animal does, so the schedule variable is the cause. I wrote the edge the other way round while writing a note that said the reinforcement rate was the manipulated side; the dry run is where that was caught. Weight 0.7 records the paper's own hedge - in general, however - stated immediately after 'No systematic relationship…' for the FI rates. | concept_edges[4] | 0.8 | 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[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | weighted average Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: weighted average | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | conditional probability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conditional probability | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Across seven variable-interval schedules the overall rate of pigeons' key-pecking rose monotonically with the overall rate of reinforcement but with diminishing returns, over a span from 8.4 to 300 reinforcements per hour. 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 | Within a single schedule, how fast the bird pecked at a given moment after reinforcement tracked the local rate of reinforcement at that moment, computed from the probability of reinforcement there and the nearness of reinforcement opportunities at other moments. 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 | The paper's overall conclusion is that a schedule's overall response rate is not set by its overall reinforcement rate but is the sum of separate local reinforcement effects distributed across times within the interval. 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 | A schedule engineered to hold the probability of reinforcement constant across time since reinforcement flattened the within-interval response gradient, keeping the local pecking rate roughly constant instead of rising. 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 local pecking rate at t sec depended on the probability of reinforcement at that time. 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 | Including a 0-sec interval (first peck after reinforcement is reinforced) raised responding only in the first two or three time bins after reinforcement, not across the whole interval. 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 | An early reinforcement probability of 0.05, unlike 0.50, was less able to maintain responding once the later, higher probability of reinforcement was removed. 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 | At matched overall reinforcement rates, arithmetic variable-interval schedules sustained higher overall response rates than fixed-interval schedules for all but one pigeon. 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 | Reinforcing a response immediately after a preceding reinforcement affected responding only over a short time since reinforcement. 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 | reinforcements per opportunity (rft/op) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | opportunity for reinforcement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: opportunity for reinforcement | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | local rate of reinforcement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: local rate of reinforcement | content_tags.definitions[3] | 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[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | fixed-interval schedule Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: fixed-interval schedule | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | geometric VI schedule Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: geometric VI schedule | content_tags.definitions[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Fibonacci VI schedule Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Fibonacci VI schedule | content_tags.definitions[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | overall rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: overall rate | content_tags.definitions[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | local rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: local rate | content_tags.definitions[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | mean interval Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mean interval | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | relative durations Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: relative durations | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | probability of reinforcement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: probability of reinforcement | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | overall rate of reinforcement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: overall rate of reinforcement | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | rate of key-pecking Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: rate of key-pecking | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | body weight Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: body weight | content_tags.variables[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 8.4 to 300 reinforcements per hour — the span of overall reinforcement rates over which the response-rate function was measured 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[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | six — number of pigeons whose key-pecking was studied in Experiment 1, maintained at 80% of free-feeding weight 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 | 0.10 + 0.02 — the reinforcement probability held nearly constant in the constant-probability schedule, over a span where the arithmetic schedule's probability rose from 0.07 to 0.33 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 | about 2 resp/min — the near-flat rise in local response rate across the constant-probability interval, about one-tenth of the rise seen in the arithmetic schedule 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 | 63.7 and 63.2 resp/min ... 61.1 and 73.7 resp/min — overall response rates on the schedules without and with a 0-sec interval, for Pigeons 278 and 281 respectively 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 | about 6% ... 50% to 90% — a tiny change in overall reinforcement rate produced a disproportionately large change in overall response rate, showing the distribution of intervals rather than the overall rate was responsible 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 | a factor of almost 40 — the growth of local reinforcement rate from 10 to 140 sec after reinforcement in the arithmetic schedule, far larger than the accompanying growth in local response rate 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 | about 12 resp/min — the rise in immediate post-reinforcement response rate that a single extra reinforced response would explain, against an observed increment roughly two and a half times larger 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.