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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| 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.
| 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 | media effects on voting behavior 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 | Small sample, so treatment effects are estimated imprecisely. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the precision of every treatment effect: THE MOST IMPORTANT [limitation] OF WHICH IS THE RELATIVELY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Delivery was randomised but actual reading could not be verified. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the interpretation of the treatment itself: WE KNOW WHICH HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVED NEWSPAPERS, [but] WE CANNOT BE SURE THAT THE NEWSPAPERS WERE READ | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Attrition on unobservables could bias the estimates. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the unbiasedness of the estimates: IF THERE IS ATTRITION BASED ON UNOBSERVED VARIABLES THAT ARE CORRELATED WITH THE OUTCOME MEASURES BUT NOT PREDICTED BY THE OBSERVABLES, OUR RESULTS MAY BE BIASED | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The sample frame excludes existing subscribers, so the estimated effect applies to an unusually low-media-exposure population. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the population the effect applies to: WE ARE STUDYING INDIVIDUALS WHO DO NOT ALREADY SUBSCRIBE TO A NEWSPAPER, HENCE ARE EXAMINING THE EFFECT OF EXPOSING INDIVIDUALS WHO, ON AVERAGE, ARE LESS EXPOSED TO THE MEDIA THAN THE A[verage] | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The turnout effect appeared only in 2006 and was of borderline significance, so both the effect and its mechanism are held provisional. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the turnout result specifically: BOTH THE EXISTENCE OF AN EFFECT AND ITS POTENTIAL MECHANISM SHOULD BE TREATED GUARDEDLY UNTIL FURTHER STUDY | limitations[4] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | What was randomised is delivery, not reading: the authors state they cannot be sure the newspapers were read. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: reading the estimates as effects of newspaper EXPOSURE: the randomisation assigned delivery, and the authors state they cannot be sure the papers were read | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The authors name small sample size as their most important limitation, with consequences for the standard errors. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: treating a null result here as evidence of no effect: the authors name the relatively small sample size as their most important limitation, with 1,081 survey interviews and 2,571 merged records | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The orthogonality claim is conditional: unobservables correlated with the outcome but unpredicted by the observables would still bias the result. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the randomisation as guaranteeing unbiasedness of these particular estimates: the authors state results may still be biased through unobservables not predicted by the observed covariates | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Just under a third of the assigned sample supplied the survey outcomes. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the follow-up survey as covering the assigned sample: 1,081 of the 3,347 individuals were reinterviewed for it | limitations[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | WHAT WAS RANDOMISED IS DELIVERY, NOT READING, and the authors say so plainly: they know which households received newspapers but cannot be sure the newspapers were read. The treatment the design controls is not the treatment the theory is about, and the gap is bridged by three self-reported survey measures. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | The online-processing model of attitude formation, taken from psychological work on impression formation and persuasion, is used to explain why candidate preference moved without any measurable gain in factual knowledge 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 | |
| controls | households randomly assigned to a third arm that was sent NEITHER newspaper, alongside the Post and Times subscription arms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: prior political interest and everything else that differs between people who read a paper and people who do not - random assignment makes the untreated arm comparable in expectation, which observational media studies cannot do · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | media slant Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: media slant | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | field experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: field experiment | concepts[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | newspaper provision Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: newspaper provision | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | media exposure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: media exposure | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | turnout Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: turnout | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | treatment - AS ASSIGNMENT: which households were sent a free subscription, which is the thing actually randomised 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 | treatment - AS EXPOSURE: whether the newspaper was read, which the paper states it cannot be sure of and can only proxy through three survey measures 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 | media effect - separated into SLANT and EXPOSURE, with the paper reporting that slant mattered less than exposure in this case Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | effect of newspapers - measured on four outcomes that came apart: NO effect on political knowledge, stated opinions, or 2005 turnout; an effect on candidate support; and weaker evidence of an effect on 2006 turnout 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 → Gentzkow (2006) 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 | |
| concept_edges | media slant —distinct-from→ media exposure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: WHICH ONE THE EXPERIMENT COULD MOVE THE OUTCOME WITH. Both papers - the conservative Times and the liberal Post - produced more support for the DEMOCRATIC candidate, so the effect cannot be attributed to slant. The design separates the two by giving opposite slants and finding the same direction · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: THE FINDING IS A NULL ON THE VARIABLE THE STUDY WAS DESIGNED AROUND. Slant is what the two-newspaper design exists to test, and it is the one thing that did not matter - 'media slant mattered less in this case than media exposure'. also in: media slant · media exposure | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | newspaper provision —causes→ turnout Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.6 — the record marks this weak · note: Reported at the weakest grade the paper uses - 'SOME EVIDENCE from voting records ALSO SUGGESTS' - and the record already carries a limitation saying the turnout effect appeared only in 2006 and was of borderline significance.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but 'Some evidence ... suggests' increased 2006 turnout; hedged. also in: newspaper provision · turnout | concept_edges[1] | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | ordinary least squares regression and probit Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | chi-squared test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: chi-squared test | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | multinomial logit regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: multinomial logit regression | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | standard error Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard error | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | null hypothesis significance test / minimum detectable effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | standardization by standard deviations from the mean Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[5] | 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[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Ten weeks of a free newspaper subscription had no detectable effect on political knowledge, stated opinions, or turnout in the 2005 election. 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 | Receiving either newspaper increased support for the Democratic candidate, so exposure to news rather than the paper's slant drove the effect. 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 | Receiving the Post raised the probability of voting for the Democrat by 11.2 percentage points among those who voted and by 7.2 percentage points across all respondents. 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 conservative Washington Times also raised the probability of a Democratic vote, contrary to what a slant-based account predicts. 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 | The estimated effects of the two papers cannot be statistically distinguished from one another. 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 | Administrative records show turnout in the 2006 election 2.8 percentage points higher in the treatment groups, an effect of only borderline significance. 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 | Neither newspaper improved respondents' ability to answer factual questions about recent news, individually or in aggregate. 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 | About 17 percent of the Post treatment group had subscribed three months after the free subscription ended. 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 | Randomization succeeded: no baseline characteristic differed significantly across the three groups, the weakest balance being on gender. 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 | The study is underpowered for small effects: turnout effects below 3.6 points, Democratic-vote effects below 7 points, and Post-versus-Times differences below 8.6 points could not have been detected. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | intent to treat effects Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: intent to treat effects | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Broad Policy index Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Broad Policy index | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Specific Issue Index Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Specific Issue Index | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | free subscription treatment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: free subscription treatment | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | voter turnout Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: voter turnout | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | strata Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: strata | content_tags.variables[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | survey date Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: survey date | content_tags.variables[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | surveyor Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: surveyor | content_tags.variables[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 3,347 — Households that reported taking neither newspaper at baseline and were randomized into the three arms 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 | 1,081 / 2,571 — Post-election survey interviews, and the number of subjects matched to administrative voting records 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 | 11.2 percentage points ( p , 0.014) — Estimated increase in the probability of voting for the Democratic candidate caused by receiving the Washington Post, among those who reported voting 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 | 2.8 percentage point — Higher 2006 turnout in the treatment groups in administrative records, standard error 1.6 points 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 | approximately 17 percent — Share of the Post treatment group that had bought its own subscription three months after the free trial ended 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 | 6 percent — Share of treatment-group households that cancelled the free subscription, kept in the sample under intent to treat 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 | approximately 92 percentage points — Actual increase in Post exposure produced by the treatment, rather than 100 points, because some control and Times households already received the Post on Sundays 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 | |
| content_tags | 1,081 of 3,347 — individuals reinterviewed for the post-election follow-up survey Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 2,571 — sample size for the data merged with administrative voting records, named as a limitation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[8] | 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.