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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
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 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 | automatic activation of attitudes 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 | In Experiments 1 and 2 associative strength was measured rather than manipulated, so the two classes of attitude may differ in other ways. 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 inhibition produced by weak negative primes in Experiment 1 did not replicate in the later experiments. 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 control primes of Experiment 3 were not equivalent to the weak primes of the first two experiments. 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 | Whether the priming procedure works as an unobtrusive attitude measure has not been tested. 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 | |
| controls | a block of practice trials used DIFFERENT words from those serving as primes Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the practice block primes the critical items before the experiment begins · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | subjects were required to RECITE the prime aloud Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that a null or weak priming effect is a failure of ATTENTION - a subject who never processed the prime cannot be primed by it · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | automatic activation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: automatic activation | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | attitude Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: attitude | concepts[3] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | associative strength Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: associative strength | concepts[7] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | nonattitude Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: nonattitude | concepts[8] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | AN ATTITUDE BECOMES A QUANTITY WITH A NAMED ZERO: `attitudes as evaluative associations with objects. Quotation withheld.` An attitude stops being something a person has or lacks and becomes a link with a magnitude. Everything else in the paper follows: if it is an association, its strength is measurable, manipulable, and predictive of whether it fires unbidden - and `nonattitude` gives the theory a prediction at the bottom of the scale as well as the top 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 | A FIFTH KIND OF BOUNDARY CONDITION - A PROPERTY OF THE STORED REPRESENTATION: `the likelihood of such automatic activation of an attitude appears to depend upon the strength of the association between the attitude object and the evaluation.` The corpus now holds five places a priming effect can be conditional: the OUTCOME SITUATION (ambiguity - four papers), the OBSERVER (prime visibility, Holcomb2005), the STIMULUS (contains a face, Huang2018), the RELATION between primes (conflict, buchner2003), and here the stored representation itself. Each needs a different remedy when a replication fails - change the task, screen the subjects, change the materials, redesign the trial structure, or select the items 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 | THE MODERATOR IS BOTH MEASURED AND MANIPULATED, WHICH IS THE STRONGEST FORM THE CLAIM COULD TAKE: `Quotation withheld.` Experiments 1 and 2 identified pre-existing strong and weak associations; Experiment 3 created them. The measured version alone would be confounded with anything that makes an object memorable or familiar; the manipulation rules that out, and the agreement between the two is the argument 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 CLAIMS AFFECT WORKS LIKE MEANING, EXPLICITLY: `Quotation withheld.` A bridge between two literatures, stated by the paper itself - the semantic priming of meyer1971 and neely1977 and the affective priming this paper starts are claimed to be one mechanism running on different contents. `Just as activation can spread from one node in the network to another ... the present data indicate a spontaneous spreading of activation from the object to the affective association` 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 → Fazio, Chen, McDonel & Sherman (1982), Fazio, Powell & Herr (1983) and Powell & Fazio (1984) on attitudes as object-evaluation associations 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 → Neely's (1977) semantic priming investigation and its short- versus long-SOA pattern 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 → past research employing the repeated attitudinal expression manipulation (Powell & Fazio, 1984) 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 | associative strength —causes→ automatic activation 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 STRONGEST-EVIDENCED EDGE ON THIS RECORD, BECAUSE THE SPAN CARRIES BOTH OPERATIONS: 'MEASURED or MANIPULATED…'. A correlational moderator would be confounded with familiarity; the manipulation rules that out, and the quote says both were done. Weight 0.9 rather than 0.95 because 'evidence ... was far stronger' is a statement about evidence rather than about effect size. also in: associative strength · automatic activation | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | 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. also in: ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[0] | 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. 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: p-value | content_tags.statistics[1] | 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[2] | 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. also in: variance | content_tags.statistics[3] | 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.