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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| 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.
This record holds no controls. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim_type | method 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 | data independence in shared data banks 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 | formal-model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: formal-model | 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 | |
| limitations | the range of representation changes achievable without impairing programs is still limited Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the data-independence claim: the range of representation changes THAT CAN BE CHANGED WITHOUT LOGICALLY IMPAIRING SOME APPLICATION PROGRAMS IS STILL QUITE LIMITED | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The paper deliberately excludes any discussion of how systems supporting the model would be implemented. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any implementation reading: IMPLEMENTATIONS OF SYSTEMS TO SUPPORT THE RELATIONAL MODEL ARE NOT DISCUSSED | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Further normalisation operations exist but are left out of the paper. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the normalisation account as complete: further operations exist and THESE ARE NOT DISCUSSED IN THIS PAPER | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The proposed data sublanguage is only sketched; neither its linguistic detail nor its implementation is worked out. 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 paper as a specification for a query language: NEITHER THE PURELY LINGUISTIC DETAILS OF SUCH A LANGUAGE NOR THE IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS ARE DISCUSSED | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Checking consistency requires an instantaneous snapshot of possibly very large, highly variable relations, a practical problem the paper does not address. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the consistency-checking proposal at scale: THERE ARE PRACTICAL PROBLEMS (WHICH WE SHALL NOT DISCUSS HERE) IN TAKING AN INSTANTANEOUS SNAPSHOT OF A COLLECTION OF RELATIONS, SOME OF WHICH MAY BE VERY LARGE AND HIGHLY VARIABLE | limitations[4] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Following a chain of stored connections to answer a question is stated to be erroneous in general; it is valid only when the target relation IS the natural composition of the links, and only if that holds for all time. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any answer obtained by following paths through linked records: it is correct only in the very special case that the target relation is the natural composition of the relations traversed, and the phrase 'for all time' must normally be added | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The normalisation procedure is stated to apply only when the collection of relations already satisfies stated structural conditions. 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 a collection of relations can be normalised: the procedure requires the graph of interrelationships of the nonsimple domains to be a collection of trees | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | A distinction the paper draws is then declared not worth maintaining for the rest of the paper. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the words 'relation' and 'relationship' anywhere after Section 1: the paper states it will not distinguish them except where being explicit is advantageous | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | modelling data as mathematical n-ary relations queried via predicate calculus, giving data independence 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 | |
| concepts | relational model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: relational model | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | normalization Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: normalization | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | data independence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: data independence | concepts[3] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | connection trap Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: connection trap | concepts[4] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | foreign key Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: foreign key | concepts[5] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | primary key Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: primary key | concepts[6] | the paper's words | |
| senses | the connection trap - A NAMED ERROR: mistaking the derivation of connections for the derivation of relations, which the paper attributes to a lack of understanding of relational composition 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 | derivability - HOLDING FOR ALL TIME, not at an instant: because the relations vary in time, the sequence of operations must yield the relation over a significant period, not once 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 | data independence - AS INDEPENDENCE FROM TWO THINGS AT ONCE: growth in data types, and changes in data representation, for application programs and terminal activities alike 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 |
| alternatives | claim_type: method 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: method — note: A BLIND second reading by the project on 2026-08-25: the record's own claim type/method/phenomenon were not looked at until every value here was written and substring-verified. Not applied - a person decides. Sampling frame: the 504 staged records carrying no alternatives block, so this never re-measures the 202. All 11 records with 130+ tags were taken as a census and 19 more spread one per discipline across 22 disciplines - the dense non-neuroscience cell is the one the 202 do not contain (inside them, 94-100% of the densest bands are neuroscience; among these 11, one is)., | alternatives.claim_type | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | method: formal-model 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: formal-model — note: A BLIND second reading by the project on 2026-08-25: the record's own claim type/method/phenomenon were not looked at until every value here was written and substring-verified. Not applied - a person decides. Sampling frame: the 504 staged records carrying no alternatives block, so this never re-measures the 202. All 11 records with 130+ tags were taken as a census and 19 more spread one per discipline across 22 disciplines - the dense non-neuroscience cell is the one the 202 do not contain (inside them, 94-100% of the densest bands are neuroscience; among these 11, one is)., | alternatives.method | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | phenomenon: data independence - insulating application programs from changes in how data is represented 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: data independence in shared data banks — note: A BLIND second reading by the project on 2026-08-25: the record's own claim type/method/phenomenon were not looked at until every value here was written and substring-verified. Not applied - a person decides. Sampling frame: the 504 staged records carrying no alternatives block, so this never re-measures the 202. All 11 records with 130+ tags were taken as a census and 19 more spread one per discipline across 22 disciplines - the dense non-neuroscience cell is the one the 202 do not contain (inside them, 94-100% of the densest bands are neuroscience; among these 11, one is)., | alternatives.phenomenon | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → n-ary relations and predicate calculus (mathematics/logic) 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 | contradicts → the graph or network model of data [3, 4] then in use for noninferential systems 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 | builds-on → data description tables in recently developed information systems [5, 6, 7] 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 | foreign key —distinct-from→ primary key 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: a foreign key is DEFINED BY NOT BEING the primary key, while drawing its values from one also in: foreign key · primary key | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | relational model —causes→ data independence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but endpoint by anaphora: 'it' = relational model (previous sentence); the span writes 'maximal independence between programs ... and machine representation', not 'data independence'. also in: relational model · data independence | concept_edges[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 3 — data dependencies still needing removal 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 | the relational view appears superior in several respects to the graph or network model 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 | the relational model gives a basis for a high-level data language with maximal independence 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 core problem is data independence 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 | the relational view forms a sound basis for treating derivability 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 | n-ary relations Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: n-ary relations | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | data representation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: data representation | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | application programs Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: application programs | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | redundancy and consistency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: redundancy and consistency | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | relational view (or model) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: relational view (or model) | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | data independence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: data independence | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | connection trap Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: connection trap | content_tags.definitions[2] | 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.