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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| 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; none of 2 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
This record holds no mechanisms. 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 | existence 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 | behavioural priming by stereotype and trait activation 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 | |
| limitations | The explanatory model of how a primed trait produces specific performance-improving behaviours is crude and unrefined 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 | Alternative explanations of the findings cannot be ruled out with the data collected 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 post hoc account of why secretary-primed participants worked faster was not testable, because the relevant stereotype attributes were never pilot-tested 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 candidate mediating behaviours (concentration, strategy use, feeling of knowing) are speculative and were not measured Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| transfers | the 42-item general knowledge instrument taken wholesale from Trivial Pursuit (1984/1987) and used as the dependent measure for primed intelligent behaviour Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| controls | three conditions - professor prime, secretary prime and NO prime - so that the secretary prime serves as a content control and the no-prime condition as a baseline Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that any prime produces the effect, and that the effect is not simply a change from baseline · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | stereotype Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: stereotype | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | behavior Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: behavior | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | perception Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: perception | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | A DOSE-RESPONSE ON PRIME DURATION, MEASURED ON BEHAVIOUR: `the magnitude of the behavioral effects simply mirrored the magnitude of the perceptual input. In Experiments 2 and 3, participants who were primed for 9 min showed stronger behavioral effects than participants who were primed for 2 min.` Nine minutes against two, read off general-knowledge performance. srull-wyer1979 doses by FREQUENCY of activation and measures a judgement; this doses by DURATION and measures what someone does - and the two papers are 19 years and one dependent-variable class apart 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 | AND THE INFERENCE DRAWN FROM THE DOSE IS THE STEP WORTH RECORDING SEPARATELY: `These results underscore the fact that the process under consideration can be characterized as rather PASSIVE.` Dose-dependence is taken as evidence of passivity - if the effect size simply tracks the amount of input, then no decision, strategy or correction is intervening to modulate it. That is a real argument and not an obvious one, and it is a different kind of claim from the measurement it rests on: the dose-response was measured, the passivity is inferred from its linearity 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 |
| senses | A CONCEPTUAL REPLICATION WITH EVERYTHING CHANGED AT ONCE: `Quotation withheld.` Three things varied simultaneously. That buys generality and spends diagnosticity - a FAILURE would not have said which of the three was responsible, and a success cannot say which mattered. In a corpus that holds several papers on when priming effects replicate, the shape of a replication is worth recording as plainly as its outcome Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | AND THE PAPER PLACES ITSELF IN THE ACCESSIBILITY LINEAGE EXPLICITLY: `Quotation withheld.` Both of those are in this corpus - higgins1977 and srull-wyer1979, tagged earlier tonight. The claimed step is from judgement to BEHAVIOUR while keeping the same mechanism, so the 1977-79 accessibility work is not merely cited but load-bearing: if accessibility does not drive judgement, this paper has no base to extend from 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 → Bargh, Chen, and Burrows (1996) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | replicates → Bargh, Chen, and Burrows (1996) 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 | stereotype —causes→ behavior Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: increases · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: THE PAPER'S CENTRAL CLAIM, and 'corresponding with specific attributes' is the part that matters and is in the quote: the effect is not general arousal or mood but takes the CONTENT of the stereotype - professors improve general knowledge, hooligans reduce it. Weight 0.9: this is the discussion's opening summary of four experiments. also in: stereotype · behavior | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | perception —causes→ behavior Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: increases · strength of the relation: 0.85 · note: 'THE AUTHORS EXPLAIN…' IS THE HEDGE AND IT IS THE FIRST CLAUSE OF THE QUOTE. This is the paper's interpretation of its own four experiments, not a measured quantity - the measured thing is the duration dose-response (first sense), and 'direct and pervasive' is what the authors conclude from it. Weight 0.85 for that gap.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the claim is how 'the authors explain their results'; attributed. also in: perception · behavior | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | priming an intelligent category improves later general-knowledge performance 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 | priming an unintelligent category impairs later performance (behavioral priming) 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 | ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | hypothesis-testing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: hypothesis-testing | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | p-value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: p-value | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | statistical-significance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: statistical-significance | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | variance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: variance | content_tags.statistics[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.