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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 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 | 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 | masked repetition priming and frequency attenuation in lexical decision 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 data cannot distinguish time-based decay of the masked effect from interference by intervening items. 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 | Whether context items can ever produce a standard long-term frequency-sensitive effect is left open. 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 | Experiment 4's repetition effect was too weak for the frequency interaction of central interest to be interpretable. 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 absence of a nontarget-priming effect may reflect low power rather than a true null. 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 | two sets of materials were built so that a repeated item in one set was preceded by the same context in the other, counterbalancing across the Repetition factor Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the repetition effect is an item effect - that repeated and unrepeated items are simply different words · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | high-frequency words were included as a control against the low-frequency items Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the repetition-induced variance increase is a general property rather than one specific to low-frequency words · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): partial | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | frequency attenuation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: frequency attenuation | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | repetition effects Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repetition effects | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | episodic memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: episodic memory | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | episodic trace Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: episodic trace | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | episodic effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: episodic effect | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | ONE NAME, TWO COMPONENTS - AND THE THIRD RECORD TODAY TO MAKE THAT MOVE: `Quotation withheld.` tulving-schacter1990 splits priming into PRS and semantic memory; was2019 splits long-term semantic priming into strengthening and memory-for-operations; this splits the repetition effect into lexical and episodic. Three decades, three different pairs, and every one splits a term the field was using as if it named one thing. They are not the same distinction - each is drawn on the dimension its own experiments could separate - which is what makes the pattern worth more than any of them 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 MASKING IS A DISSECTION INSTRUMENT HERE, NOT A WAY OF HIDING A STIMULUS: `the masking is assumed to minimize the influence of any possible episodic trace of the prime.` Every other masked-priming record in this corpus masks to make the prime UNREPORTABLE - dehaene1998, marcel1983, Finkbeiner2011, hesselmann2016, and all the argument about whether the subject saw it. Here masking SUBTRACTS A COMPONENT so the other can be measured alone, and the evidence that it worked is that frequency attenuation disappears. A reader who knows masked priming as an awareness paradigm will misread this design 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 | AND THE TARGET IS A CLASS OF MODEL, NAMED: `Quotation withheld.` The paper is not reporting an effect and looking for an explanation - it is reporting an effect that a specific published architecture cannot produce. A result aimed at a model is falsifiable in a way a result aimed at a phenomenon is not, and it is why this paper is still cited: the model it was aimed at is Forster's own 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 CLAIM IS ABOUT THE TASK, NOT THE FACULTY: `frequency attenuation is a product of the involvement of the episodic memory system in the lexical decision process.` Not that lexical access is episodic - that the lexical decision TASK recruits episodic memory, so a measure everyone treats as a window on the lexicon is partly a memory test. The same shape as the task-difficulty artifact and the associative-priming confound: the instrument is part of the phenomenon, and that is now four records this session saying so about four different measures 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 | replicates → Evett and Humphreys (1981) 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 → Oliphant (1983) 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 → Balota (1983) 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 | episodic memory —causes→ frequency attenuation 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: 'is a product of' IS THE PAPER'S OWN VERB AND THE CLAIM IS ABOUT THE TASK. Episodic memory is recruited BY THE LEXICAL DECISION PROCESS, and that recruitment produces the frequency sensitivity. Weight 0.9: it is the abstract's stated hypothesis and the masking experiments are built to test it - remove the episodic trace and the attenuation goes. The direction is testable and was tested, which is why this is 0.9 rather than the 0.7 a bare attribution would get.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but 'The suggestion is made' that episodic memory produces frequency attenuation; hedged. also in: episodic memory · frequency attenuation | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | episodic effect —part-of→ repetition effects Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: THE COMPONENT STRUCTURE, AND 'part-of' IS EXACTLY RIGHT FOR ONCE. The quote says repetition effects CONSIST OF two components and names both with their frequency signatures. The episodic half is the one masking removes. I first ran this from 'episodic trace' at weight 0.9, discounting for the fact that the quote says 'episodic EFFECT' - and the guard refused it. The right answer was a second node, not a lower weight. 'episodic trace' is what is STORED and masking removes; 'episodic effect' is what is MEASURED and frequency modulates. The paper uses both for this half and never says they are the same. A WEIGHT CANNOT EXPRESS A TERM MISMATCH; A NODE CAN. also in: episodic effect · repetition effects | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | 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. 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: hypothesis-testing | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | mean 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: mean | 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 | standard-deviation 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: standard-deviation | content_tags.statistics[3] | 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. also in: statistical-significance | content_tags.statistics[4] | 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[5] | 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.