(cid:NN). The PDF this text was extracted from encodes 2 characters in a way that names no letter, so the extractor could not say what they were. The quotes keep them because a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing — the marks are the source’s, not the tagging’s.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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 2 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 | executive function contributions to mathematics achievement 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 | Because age-appropriate mathematics content was chosen separately for each group, the study may have measured only the application of already-mastered material, which could explain the absence of age-related change. 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 direct working-memory-to-achievement pathway has not been shown to survive control for working memory's role in performing the arithmetic operation itself. 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 | IQ was not included, so its share of the variance in each mathematics component is unknown. 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 field's existing evidence cannot be put side by side, because it comes from separate studies — which is the stated reason this study exists. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the accumulated literature on executive functions and arithmetic: the paper states the evidence is drawn across separate studies, so the contributions cannot be directly compared across the three core competencies | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The three-part division of the central construct is inherited from one paper rather than derived here. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the executive-function components in this analysis: they follow the three-component division of Miyake et al. (2000) rather than being derived from these data | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| controls | a DIFFERENT item set chosen for each age band - 8-9, 11-12, 13-14, and young adults Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: floor and ceiling effects as the explanation of an age difference - a task easy enough for adults compresses their scores at ceiling and would make the developmental difference an artefact of the scale rather than of the ability · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the full list of acceptable strategies - counting in the head, on fingers, decomposition, retrieval - stated explicitly to participants Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: younger children suppressing the strategy they actually used because they believed it was not allowed, which would bias the self-report measure precisely in the age group the study is about · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[1] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | executive functions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: executive functions | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | inhibition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: inhibition | concepts[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | shifting Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: shifting | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | updating Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: updating | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | working memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: working memory | concepts[4] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| unhoused_relations | updating → executive functions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. A CUE-LIST GAP, NOT A VOCABULARY GAP - 'part-of' IS THE RIGHT TYPE. 'ARE TYPICALLY DIVIDED…' The gate refused it because its containment cue list holds 'within / part of / comprises / consists of / includes / belongs to' and not 'divided into'. Measured over all 711 staged bodies: 'composed of' 262 occurrences in 151 bodies and 'divided into' 201 in 137 - each MORE COMMON than 'comprises' (68 in 51), which IS in the list; also 'made up of' 28 and 'subdivided into' 17. I could have passed this edge by omitting relation evidence, because the type-specific cue test only fires when that field is supplied - which is the same shape, and the fact that I can is not a reason to. The edge is filed here until the cue list is amended by whoever owns the gate, and should be promoted to 'part-of' when it is. Note also that this record was MISSING the third Miyake component entirely: it carried 'inhibition' and 'shifting' and not 'updating'. the project, 2026-08-26. | unhoused_relations[0] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| senses | executive functions - AS DIVIDED HERE: three components following Miyake et al. (2000) — updating or working memory, inhibition, and shifting 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 | working memory - the Baddeley and Hitch (1974) model, described as adopted by the MAJORITY of researchers in the field rather than as established 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 | `updating` / `working memory` - AN ALIAS ASSERTED BY A BARE `OR`, AND IT IS THE LOOSEST JOIN IN THIS PAPER. `These are (i) updating or working memory, the ability to monitor and manipulate information held in mind`. Miyake's component is `updating`; `working memory` is a much older and much broader term that this sentence quietly equates with it. The paper's own later sections then distinguish VERBAL from VISUOSPATIAL working memory and report they behave differently - a distinction `updating` does not carry. The `or` does more work than it admits. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| senses | `executive functions` - DEFINED BY WHAT THEY ARE FOR, THEN IMMEDIATELY BY A THREE-WAY PARTITION. `Executive functions, the skills used to guide and control thought and action, Quotation withheld` The functional gloss is the paper's own; the partition is attributed, and `typically` marks it as convention rather than fact. Each component then gets a one-clause definition in the same sentence - updating, inhibition, shifting - so the whole construct is fixed in 60 words. 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 → Geary (2004); Geary & Hoard (2005) hierarchical framework of mathematics 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 | extends → previous hierarchical multi-component models of mathematics 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 → Cowan and Powell (2014); Fuchs et al. (2005) 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 | |
| claim_relations | contradicts → Andersson (2010); Clark et al. (2010) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | replicates → Hecht et al. (2003); Jordan et al. (2013) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[4] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · inhibition —part-of→ executive functions 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 had an elided subject - 'are typically divided into…' three components - so the term executive functions was never named. This sentence names both and places one inside the other: the contribution of executive functions, '…IN PARTICULAR INHIBITION…' and shifting, to procedural skill. — strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but endpoint by anaphora: the span continues the sentence whose subject is 'Executive functions' (immediately before the span). also in: inhibition · executive functions | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | inhibition —part-of→ executive functions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: RE-GROUNDS another row of this record: the old span named ONE endpoint. also in: inhibition · executive functions | concept_edges[1] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | hierarchical regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: hierarchical regression | content_tags.statistics[0] | 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[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | variance partitioning Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: variance partitioning | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Mahalanobis distance (outlier detection) 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 | multiple imputation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: multiple imputation | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | standardization (z-scores) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standardization (z-scores) | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | descriptive statistics Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: descriptive statistics | content_tags.statistics[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | mediation analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mediation analysis | content_tags.statistics[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The domain-specific skills of factual knowledge, procedural skill and conceptual understanding only partially mediated the executive-function/achievement link, with numerical inhibitory control acting on achievement through factual knowledge and procedural skill. 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 | Executive function measures explained far more variance in overall mathematics achievement (34%) than in any single component skill, and least of all in conceptual understanding (5%). 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 | Verbal working memory uniquely predicted all four outcomes - factual knowledge, procedural skill, conceptual understanding and mathematics achievement. 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 | Shifting and non-numerical inhibition independently predicted none of the outcomes, whereas numerical inhibition uniquely predicted factual knowledge and procedural skill. 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 | Contrary to prediction, the relationships between executive functions and mathematics were the same from 8 years to adulthood. 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 | Visuospatial working memory had a substantial direct effect on mathematics achievement (b = 0.25). 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 | Verbal working memory influenced achievement indirectly through all three component skills, with the procedural-skill route the largest of the three indirect paths. 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 predicted relationship of inhibition and shifting with overall mathematics achievement was not found. 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 | executive functions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: executive functions | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | factual knowledge Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: factual knowledge | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | working memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: working memory | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | inhibition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: inhibition | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | shifting Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: shifting | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | mathematics achievement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mathematics achievement | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | factual knowledge, procedural skill and conceptual understanding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | executive function measures Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: executive function measures | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | verbal working memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: verbal working memory | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | age contrasts Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: age contrasts | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | total number of words correctly recalled Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.variables[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 293 — total participants tested, aged 8-25 years 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 | 34% — variance in mathematics achievement explained by the executive function measures alone 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 | b = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.15–0.34 — direct effect of visuospatial working memory on mathematics achievement after the mediators were included 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 | 9% — unique variance in mathematics achievement attributable to the working memory tasks once storage and processing speed were controlled 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 | 0.3% — proportion of missing data replaced by multiple imputation 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 |
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.