Are We All Amazon Primed? Consumers and the Politics of Platform Power

Culpepper, Thelen · Comparative Political Studies · 2020 · comparative-political-economy · 10.1177/0010414019852687 · record culpepper2020-are-we-all-amazon-primed-consumers
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (pdftext); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. This paper is in the corpus under 'priming' but the sense is identity priming in political behaviour ('Priming citizen identity can lead to more sociotropic preferences, while priming consumer identity can lead to a narrower focus on individual self-interest'), not cognitive/semantic priming; 'Amazon Primed' in the title is a pun. method is recorded as conceptual-analysis because none of the suggested method labels fits: the paper states its enterprise is 'primarily conceptual' and uses illustrative cases (GDPR/Snowden, Facebook/Cambridge Analytica, Uber in the US vs Denmark, Free Basics in India, Airbnb) rather than a designed empirical study. The paper explicitly rejects instrumental- and structural-power accounts, but that rejection is aimed at a literature rather than at one named prior work relating to itself, so it is not recorded as a contradicts relation under the naming rule. 2026-08-15 and 2026-08-17 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in 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.

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 3 concept tags on this paper, all 3 are grounded in a quoted sentence.

platform power structural power quiet politics Consumer appreciation verging on dependence on platform convenience translates market power into political clout, because politicians anticipate the backlash from depriving constituents of that convenience Which of a person's identities is made salient shifts their regulatory preferences: priming the citizen identity produces sociotropic preferences, priming the consumer identity produces a narrow focus on self-interest Platform power operates automatically in politicians' minds as anticipated political fallout, not as fear of disinvestment or job loss A TERM IS COINED IN ONE SENTENCE AND GIVEN A STRUCTURAL DEFINITION IN THE NEXT: Quotation withheld The coinage is announced as the article's contribution, so the word arrives already carrying the claim it was invented to make AND THE DEFINITION IS A STRUCTURAL POSITION RATHER THAN A PROPERTY OF THE FIRM: Quotation withheld What the term denotes is a place in a structure - who controls the terms of access - not a size, a sector, or a behaviour THE TERM IS THEN DEFINED BY WHAT IT IS NOT, RULING OUT THE FIELD'S TWO STANDARD MECHANISMS BY NAME: Quotation withheld The new construct is positioned by excluding the two things political economy already had words for THE THRESHOLD FOR THE TERM IS SET DELIBERATELY BELOW THE LEGAL ONE, IN A PARENTHETICAL: platform firms that achieve A CERTAIN ECONOMIC SCALE - WHICH NEED NOT REACH MONOPOLY PROPORTIONS - benefit from the direct relationship they enjoy to a large number of consumers WHO RELY ON THE PLATFORM AS IT BECOMES INTEGRATED INTO THE FABRIC OF THEIR DAILY LIVES. The concept is built to apply where antitrust does not reach, and the gap is stated rather than left to be noticed A PRIOR DISTINCTION IS ATTRIBUTED TO THE SCHOOL THAT BUILT IT, AS SCAFFOLDING: MARXIST SCHOLARS BUILT SOME OF THE SCAFFOLDING FOR THESE MODERN DEBATES BY DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THE INSTRUMENTAL AND STRUCTURAL POWER OF BUSINESS. The two inherited terms are named, dated and credited before the paper argues that neither covers its case AND THE INHERITED VOCABULARY IS DECLARED INSUFFICIENT RATHER THAN WRONG: Quotation withheld The older term is left standing and denied primacy, which is a different move from refuting it AN ASSUMPTION IS ATTRIBUTED TO THREE RIVAL APPROACHES AT ONCE, AND IT IS THE ASSUMPTION THE PAPER DENIES: Quotation withheld One premise is extracted from three literatures and named as the thing they share `BY DEFINITION` IS USED TO CONCEDE A GENERAL TRUTH AND THEN SET IT ASIDE: CONSUMERS ARE BY DEFINITION IMPORTANT TO ANY CAPITALIST ENTERPRISE, but the relationship to today's dominant platforms GOES BEYOND FAMILIAR MODELS OF CONSUMER LOYALTY OR COST-BASED CHOICE. The phrase marks what does not need arguing so that the contrast can carry the argument AND THE PAPER REPLACES ONE OF ITS OWN WORDS MID-ARGUMENT, SAYING WHICH ONE IT MEANS: Quotation withheld Two candidate terms for one relationship, and the substitution is performed in the open rather than by drifting usage DEPENDENCE IS OPERATIONALISED BY A BEHAVIOURAL CONTRAST CONCRETE ENOUGH TO CHECK: CONSUMERS LOVE LEGO BUT THEY ARE NOT DEPENDENT ON THE COMPANY IN THE SAME WAY that they are dependent on Amazon, WHICH ACTUALLY ALLOWS THEM TO ORDER THEIR LEGOS WITHOUT HAVING TO CHANGE OUT OF THEIR PAJAMAS. Affection and dependence are separated by what the firm lets you avoid doing, and the test is a scene rather than a measure THE DIFFERENCE FROM EARLIER DOMINANT FIRMS IS LOCATED IN THE CONNECTION, NOT THE SIZE: UNLIKE PREVIOUS GENERATIONS OF LARGE COMPANIES ON WHICH THE BROADER ECONOMY CAME TO DEPEND, such as railways or utility companies, today's largest platforms enjoy A TIGHT, EVEN INTIMATE, CONNECTION TO THEIR USERS. The comparison class is named - railways, utilities - so the novelty claim can be checked against it permissive consensus consumer confidence political effectiveness conceptual-analysis

Legend

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

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414019852687. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 2 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 1 · concepts 3 · content_tags 20 · limitations 3 · mechanisms 14 · method 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 2 · transfers 2

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 1 relation here carry 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	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	platform power 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	conceptual-analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conceptual-analysis	`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. also in: Consumer appreciation verging on dependence on platform convenience translates market power into political clout, because politicians anticipate the backlash from depriving constituents of that convenience	`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. also in: Which of a person's identities is made salient shifts their regulatory preferences: priming the citizen identity produces sociotropic preferences, priming the consumer identity produces a narrow focus on self-interest	`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. also in: Platform power operates automatically in politicians' minds as anticipated political fallout, not as fear of disinvestment or job loss	`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. also in: A TERM IS COINED IN ONE SENTENCE AND GIVEN A STRUCTURAL DEFINITION IN THE NEXT: Quotation withheld The coinage is announced as the article's contribution, so the word arrives already carrying the claim it was invented to make	`mechanisms[3]`	0.95	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. also in: AND THE DEFINITION IS A STRUCTURAL POSITION RATHER THAN A PROPERTY OF THE FIRM: Quotation withheld What the term denotes is a place in a structure - who controls the terms of access - not a size, a sector, or a behaviour	`mechanisms[4]`	0.95	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. also in: THE TERM IS THEN DEFINED BY WHAT IT IS NOT, RULING OUT THE FIELD'S TWO STANDARD MECHANISMS BY NAME: Quotation withheld The new construct is positioned by excluding the two things political economy already had words for	`mechanisms[5]`	0.95	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. also in: THE THRESHOLD FOR THE TERM IS SET DELIBERATELY BELOW THE LEGAL ONE, IN A PARENTHETICAL: platform firms that achieve A CERTAIN ECONOMIC SCALE - WHICH NEED NOT REACH MONOPOLY PROPORTIONS - benefit from the direct relationship they enjoy to a large number of consumers WHO RELY ON THE PLATFORM AS IT BECOMES INTEGRATED INTO THE FABRIC OF THEIR DAILY LIVES. The concept is built to apply where antitrust does not reach, and the gap is stated rather than left to be noticed	`mechanisms[6]`	0.95	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. also in: A PRIOR DISTINCTION IS ATTRIBUTED TO THE SCHOOL THAT BUILT IT, AS SCAFFOLDING: MARXIST SCHOLARS BUILT SOME OF THE SCAFFOLDING FOR THESE MODERN DEBATES BY DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THE INSTRUMENTAL AND STRUCTURAL POWER OF BUSINESS. The two inherited terms are named, dated and credited before the paper argues that neither covers its case	`mechanisms[7]`	0.95	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. also in: AND THE INHERITED VOCABULARY IS DECLARED INSUFFICIENT RATHER THAN WRONG: Quotation withheld The older term is left standing and denied primacy, which is a different move from refuting it	`mechanisms[8]`	0.95	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. also in: AN ASSUMPTION IS ATTRIBUTED TO THREE RIVAL APPROACHES AT ONCE, AND IT IS THE ASSUMPTION THE PAPER DENIES: Quotation withheld One premise is extracted from three literatures and named as the thing they share	`mechanisms[9]`	0.95	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. also in: `BY DEFINITION` IS USED TO CONCEDE A GENERAL TRUTH AND THEN SET IT ASIDE: CONSUMERS ARE BY DEFINITION IMPORTANT TO ANY CAPITALIST ENTERPRISE, but the relationship to today's dominant platforms GOES BEYOND FAMILIAR MODELS OF CONSUMER LOYALTY OR COST-BASED CHOICE. The phrase marks what does not need arguing so that the contrast can carry the argument	`mechanisms[10]`	0.95	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. also in: AND THE PAPER REPLACES ONE OF ITS OWN WORDS MID-ARGUMENT, SAYING WHICH ONE IT MEANS: Quotation withheld Two candidate terms for one relationship, and the substitution is performed in the open rather than by drifting usage	`mechanisms[11]`	0.95	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. also in: DEPENDENCE IS OPERATIONALISED BY A BEHAVIOURAL CONTRAST CONCRETE ENOUGH TO CHECK: CONSUMERS LOVE LEGO BUT THEY ARE NOT DEPENDENT ON THE COMPANY IN THE SAME WAY that they are dependent on Amazon, WHICH ACTUALLY ALLOWS THEM TO ORDER THEIR LEGOS WITHOUT HAVING TO CHANGE OUT OF THEIR PAJAMAS. Affection and dependence are separated by what the firm lets you avoid doing, and the test is a scene rather than a measure	`mechanisms[12]`	0.95	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. also in: THE DIFFERENCE FROM EARLIER DOMINANT FIRMS IS LOCATED IN THE CONNECTION, NOT THE SIZE: UNLIKE PREVIOUS GENERATIONS OF LARGE COMPANIES ON WHICH THE BROADER ECONOMY CAME TO DEPEND, such as railways or utility companies, today's largest platforms enjoy A TIGHT, EVEN INTIMATE, CONNECTION TO THEIR USERS. The comparison class is named - railways, utilities - so the novelty claim can be checked against it	`mechanisms[13]`	0.95	the tagger's words
limitations	The phenomenon is too recent for systematic testing of the paper's propositions. 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 survey evidence on preferring company self-regulation is American only; the authors lack comparable data elsewhere. 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	The assumed consumer preference against regulation is a simplification the authors concede. 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
transfers	The concept of priming - that individuals hold multiple identities whose salience can be cued, thereby shifting their political preferences - is imported to explain when consumers defend or abandon platform firms. 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
transfers	The permissive-consensus model of EU public opinion is borrowed as the analogy for how consumer support licenses platform firms until salient issues break it. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[1]`		the tagger's words
concepts	platform power Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: platform power	`concepts[0]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	structural power Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: structural power	`concepts[1]`	0.9	the paper's words
concepts	quiet politics Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: quiet politics	`concepts[2]`	0.9	the paper's words
senses	platform power - NOT A THING ANYONE DOES: it is 'LARGELY AUTOMATIC - it happens in the minds of politicians', an anticipated reaction rather than an act of lobbying, disinvestment or campaign spending. A power exercised by nobody, which is what makes it hard to observe and easy to deny Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
senses	the resource that carries the power - CONSUMERS, NOT MONEY OR JOBS: firms 'benefit from the tacit allegiance of consumers, who can prove a formidable source of opposition to regulations that threaten these platforms'. The asset is an alliance the firm does not have to organise and cannot fully control Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[1]`	0.95	the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → Hooghe and Marks (2009), permissive consensus 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	builds-on → Naoi and Kume (2015) on priming consumer identity and trade preferences 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	platform power —distinct-from→ structural power Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: WHAT THE THREATENED LOSS IS. Both work the same way - 'In common with Lindblom's (1982) punishing recoil mechanism, platform power is largely automatic - it happens in the minds of politicians.' The difference is the content of the anticipated punishment: 'in the case of platform power, Quotation withheld.' Two powers with one mechanism and different currencies, which is why a measure built for disinvestment threat would score platform firms at zero · strength of the relation: 0.9 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but endpoint by anaphora: 'The difference' is between platform power and the structural power of the previous sentences. also in: platform power · structural power	`concept_edges[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
content_tags	Platform firms' deference from policymakers does not come mainly from lobbying, campaign contributions or the threat of disinvestment. 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	Market power alone does not produce platform power: economic dominance is necessary but must be combined with a direct consumer relationship. 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	Platform companies are more likely than other companies to run broad-based political campaigns, pitting their popularity against their opponents'. 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 Snowden revelations drove a wedge between platforms and consumers by revealing a hidden cost of reliance on them, and the public outrage helped strengthen the GDPR. 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	Danish unions defeated Uber by reframing it as a tax and welfare-state question, appealing to people as taxpaying citizens instead of convenience-seeking consumers. 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	Politicians bend more to platforms whose users are their own voters, which helps explain why cities regulate Airbnb more than Uber. 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	Where consumer and platform interests coincide, as with the harsh labour practices behind fast cheap Amazon delivery, no political mobilisation follows because consumers are themselves implicated in the practice. 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 paper predicts that a platform losing consumer confidence will lose regulatory battles even when its share price and market share are untouched. 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	Courts and competition authorities may pose the biggest threat to platform power, because they are relatively insulated from consumer pressure. 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	platform power Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: platform power	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	permissive consensus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: permissive consensus	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	consumer confidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: consumer confidence	`content_tags.variables[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	political effectiveness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: political effectiveness	`content_tags.variables[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	74 percent — Share of respondents in the 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer trusting the technology sector to do what is right, the highest of any industry 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	39 vs. 56 percent — Americans wanting the US government to restrict false information online versus wanting tech companies to do it 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	$13 million — Amazon's 2017 US lobbying spending, up from $2.5 million five years earlier 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	56 percent — Americans naming Facebook as the least trusted tech company just after the Cambridge Analytica scandal, against 5 percent for Google 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	2.4 million views — Reach of the Danish union's anti-Uber video campaign, in a country of 5.7 million people 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	five of the top six — Places held by platform companies in YouGov's 2018 global brand health rankings 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	$45 million — Cost of Facebook's publicity campaign for Free Basics in India 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

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

none — every tag was located 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.