(cid:NN). The PDF this text was extracted from encodes 29 characters in a way that names no letter, so the extractor could not say what they were. The quotes keep them because a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing — the marks are the source’s, not the tagging’s.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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
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 | null-result 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 | unconscious priming under continuous flash suppression 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. status: the paper's own words: Speculative | 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 | |
| limitations | The width/length ratio distribution differed across categories and was not modelled as a random effect, so it may have driven the shape-task priming. 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 | Primes also appeared as visible targets, so stimulus-response mapping cannot be excluded as an explanation of the priming effects. 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 null result may partly reflect sampling and low statistical power. 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 | How low- and high-level information modulates the shape-task priming effect is unresolved. 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 forced-choice discrimination test on the invisible stimuli, with FOUR PARTICIPANTS EXCLUDED for performing above chance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the stimuli were not actually invisible - a priming effect claimed as unconscious when those subjects could in fact see the prime · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | the assignment of response keys was counterbalanced across participants Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the effect is a motor or hand preference rather than a categorisation effect · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | CFS Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: CFS | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | shape task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: shape task | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | category task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: category task | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: priming | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | A NULL AND AN EFFECT IN ONE SENTENCE, WHICH IS WHY THE NULL CANNOT BE DISMISSED: `we found evidence for priming in a shape task, but none for priming in a category task, when prime stimuli were rendered invisible using CFS.` The corpus's second powered priming null after bamberger2024, and a stronger one - there the whole result was a null and the authors had to name reasons the manipulation might have failed. Here the null is HALF OF A WITHIN-PAPER CONTRAST: same primes, same suppression, same subjects, and the other task showed the effect. A failed manipulation cannot produce that 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 CONCLUSION IS A RESTRICTION ON A METHOD THE FIELD HAS BEEN EXPANDING: `Quotation withheld.` The introduction records that CFS has been called a `game changer` for its `seemingly unlimited potential to present various kinds of visual stimuli unconsciously`. This paper is the counter-pressure, and the corpus should hold the claim and its limit together rather than one of them 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 THEY DECLINE TO OVER-READ THE POSITIVE HALF, WHICH IS RARER THAN REPORTING THE NULL: `Quotation withheld.` The effect they DID find does not fit the obvious account. Most records in this corpus defend their surviving result; this one reports that its own is unexplained - which is what makes the null beside it credible 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 MECHANISM OFFERED IS MARKED AS SPECULATION INSIDE ITS OWN SENTENCE: `SPECULATIVELY, the category task might have DESENSITIZED perceptual pathways related to the processing of prime elongation and thus diminished category-by-shape priming; by contrast, the shape task - requiring only attention to basic visual features - SENSITIZED perceptual pathways.` Attentional sensitization as a TASK-SET effect (Kiefer 2012). If it holds, every masked-priming null in the literature is conditional on the task used to measure it - which would make the measurement instrument part of the phenomenon, and is the strongest version of what this corpus keeps finding one record at a time 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 | contradicts → Almeida et al. (2014) elongation-based category priming 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 | contradicts → Almeida et al. (2008), Almeida et al. (2010) and Sakuraba et al. (2012) tool-priming effects 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 → Gayet et al. (2014) feature-level account of interocular suppression 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 | CFS —causes→ priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: no-change · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: 'no-change' ON THE CATEGORY TASK, AND THE SHAPE TASK IS THE CONTROL THAT MAKES IT MEAN SOMETHING. The same quote carries both halves: priming survives suppression in one task and not the other. Recording only the surviving half would say CFS leaves priming intact; recording only the null would say it abolishes it; both are wrong and the sentence says so. The measure-construct ambiguity does not arise - the measured quantity and the construct move together - but the direction gap does: the direction is conditioned on the task, and there is no way to say that on an edge. Weight 0.9. | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | shape task —contrasted-with→ category task 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 CONTRAST IS THE RESULT. Not two tasks compared for their own sake - the difference between them IS the finding, because it is what turns a null into evidence about the level of representation that survives suppression rather than evidence about the experiment. Weight 0.95: explicit in the quote and it is the paper's title. also in: shape task · category task | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | repeated-measures ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repeated-measures ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: t-test | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | power analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: THE MATHS LAYER OF THE STAGED TEXT WAS MOJIBAKE AND HAS BEEN REPAIRED. This paper's extraction rendered '=' as U+00BC (the vulgar fraction one quarter) and '+' as U+00FE (thorn), so the quote read 'p ¼ 0.01' where the paper says 'p = 0.01'. It passed every check we own, because the staged text said the same wrong thing: the offsets were right and the recorded hash of the staged text matched. Repaired only where the character stands in an operator's place - spaced, with a number after it - because the same U+00BC is a REAL QUARTER in six other papers ('a ¼ inch condenser microphone'). Original in evidence as extracted, pre-repair file in an internal file. also in: power analysis | content_tags.statistics[2] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | effect size Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: THE MATHS LAYER OF THE STAGED TEXT WAS MOJIBAKE AND HAS BEEN REPAIRED. This paper's extraction rendered '=' as U+00BC (the vulgar fraction one quarter) and '+' as U+00FE (thorn), so the quote read 'p ¼ 0.01' where the paper says 'p = 0.01'. It passed every check we own, because the staged text said the same wrong thing: the offsets were right and the recorded hash of the staged text matched. Repaired only where the character stands in an operator's place - spaced, with a number after it - because the same U+00BC is a REAL QUARTER in six other papers ('a ¼ inch condenser microphone'). Original in evidence as extracted, pre-repair file in an internal file. also in: effect size | content_tags.statistics[3] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | binomial test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: THE MATHS LAYER OF THE STAGED TEXT WAS MOJIBAKE AND HAS BEEN REPAIRED. This paper's extraction rendered '=' as U+00BC (the vulgar fraction one quarter) and '+' as U+00FE (thorn), so the quote read 'p ¼ 0.01' where the paper says 'p = 0.01'. It passed every check we own, because the staged text said the same wrong thing: the offsets were right and the recorded hash of the staged text matched. Repaired only where the character stands in an operator's place - spaced, with a number after it - because the same U+00BC is a REAL QUARTER in six other papers ('a ¼ inch condenser microphone'). Original in evidence as extracted, pre-repair file in an internal file. also in: binomial test | content_tags.statistics[4] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: correlation | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | interquartile range (outlier rule) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: interquartile range (outlier rule) | content_tags.statistics[6] | 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. also in: standard deviation | content_tags.statistics[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | standard error of the mean Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: THE MATHS LAYER OF THE STAGED TEXT WAS MOJIBAKE AND HAS BEEN REPAIRED. This paper's extraction rendered '=' as U+00BC (the vulgar fraction one quarter) and '+' as U+00FE (thorn), so the quote read 'p ¼ 0.01' where the paper says 'p = 0.01'. It passed every check we own, because the staged text said the same wrong thing: the offsets were right and the recorded hash of the staged text matched. Repaired only where the character stands in an operator's place - spaced, with a number after it - because the same U+00BC is a REAL QUARTER in six other papers ('a ¼ inch condenser microphone'). Original in evidence as extracted, pre-repair file in an internal file. Correction, 18 September 2026: only '=' and '+' were repaired. In this quote the '6' in 'mean 6 SEM' is ± (mean ± SEM) and still prints wrongly. also in: standard error of the mean | content_tags.statistics[8] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | In Experiment 1 neither elongated tool primes nor elongated animal primes speeded categorization of elongated tool targets relative to nonelongated animal primes; the 5 ms and 4 ms differences ran in the predicted direction but were not significant. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: THE MATHS LAYER OF THE STAGED TEXT WAS MOJIBAKE AND HAS BEEN REPAIRED. This paper's extraction rendered '=' as U+00BC (the vulgar fraction one quarter) and '+' as U+00FE (thorn), so the quote read 'p ¼ 0.01' where the paper says 'p = 0.01'. It passed every check we own, because the staged text said the same wrong thing: the offsets were right and the recorded hash of the staged text matched. Repaired only where the character stands in an operator's place - spaced, with a number after it - because the same U+00BC is a REAL QUARTER in six other papers ('a ¼ inch condenser microphone'). Original in evidence as extracted, pre-repair file in an internal file. | content_tags.findings[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | In Experiment 2 the category task again showed no elongation-based priming, and this time the reaction-time differences ran opposite to the predicted direction. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: THE MATHS LAYER OF THE STAGED TEXT WAS MOJIBAKE AND HAS BEEN REPAIRED. This paper's extraction rendered '=' as U+00BC (the vulgar fraction one quarter) and '+' as U+00FE (thorn), so the quote read 'p ¼ 0.01' where the paper says 'p = 0.01'. It passed every check we own, because the staged text said the same wrong thing: the offsets were right and the recorded hash of the staged text matched. Repaired only where the character stands in an operator's place - spaced, with a number after it - because the same U+00BC is a REAL QUARTER in six other papers ('a ¼ inch condenser microphone'). Original in evidence as extracted, pre-repair file in an internal file. Correction, 18 September 2026: the '¼' in this quote was NOT repaired, because the minus sign after it did not survive extraction and prints as '(cid:3)': 't(26) ¼ (cid:3)0.01' is t(26) = −0.01, and 't(26) ¼ (cid:3)0.82' is t(26) = −0.82. (Read from the sentence; we hold no PDF of this paper.) | content_tags.findings[1] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | With the same stimuli and the same observers, a shape-discrimination task did produce priming: shape-congruent primes speeded responses to elongated tool targets, with a reversed and less robust difference for nonelongated tool targets. 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 | Across both experiments there is no support for unconscious category-by-shape priming under CFS, but suppressed prime shape does affect shape discrimination of tool targets. 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 primes were genuinely invisible: forced-choice category discrimination of primes rated invisible was at chance level, 48.87% in Experiment 1. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: THE MATHS LAYER OF THE STAGED TEXT WAS MOJIBAKE AND HAS BEEN REPAIRED. This paper's extraction rendered '=' as U+00BC (the vulgar fraction one quarter) and '+' as U+00FE (thorn), so the quote read 'p ¼ 0.01' where the paper says 'p = 0.01'. It passed every check we own, because the staged text said the same wrong thing: the offsets were right and the recorded hash of the staged text matched. Repaired only where the character stands in an operator's place - spaced, with a number after it - because the same U+00BC is a REAL QUARTER in six other papers ('a ¼ inch condenser microphone'). Original in evidence as extracted, pre-repair file in an internal file. Correction, 18 September 2026: the '¼' in this quote was NOT repaired, because the minus sign after it did not survive extraction and prints as '(cid:3)': 't(22) ¼ (cid:3)1.41' is t(22) = −1.41. (Read from the sentence; we hold no PDF of this paper.) | content_tags.findings[4] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Correlations between prime-target orientation difference and reaction time were slightly larger for tool than for animal targets (p = 0.043). Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: THE MATHS LAYER OF THE STAGED TEXT WAS MOJIBAKE AND HAS BEEN REPAIRED. This paper's extraction rendered '=' as U+00BC (the vulgar fraction one quarter) and '+' as U+00FE (thorn), so the quote read 'p ¼ 0.01' where the paper says 'p = 0.01'. It passed every check we own, because the staged text said the same wrong thing: the offsets were right and the recorded hash of the staged text matched. Repaired only where the character stands in an operator's place - spaced, with a number after it - because the same U+00BC is a REAL QUARTER in six other papers ('a ¼ inch condenser microphone'). Original in evidence as extracted, pre-repair file in an internal file. Correction, 18 September 2026: the '¼' in this quote was NOT repaired, because the minus sign after it did not survive extraction and prints as '(cid:3)': 'r ¼(cid:3)0.042' is r = −0.042. (The same printed character is a minus sign in this paper's other sentences, where the sense requires one; we hold no PDF of this paper.) | content_tags.findings[5] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | The pattern is read as evidence that stimuli suppressed by CFS are represented only as features and coarse feature configurations, not at a category or semantic level. 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 | Participants may have performed a shape discrimination (elongated vs nonelongated) rather than the instructed category discrimination. 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 | continuous flash suppression (CFS) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: continuous flash suppression (CFS) | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | dorsal CFS bias Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: dorsal CFS bias | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | elongated stimuli Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: RULED, NOT PREVIOUSLY ADJUDICATED. This quote carries an unmapped font glyph and was not covered by the 2026-08-25 ruling, which reached only rows flagged with glyph damage. The same reasoning applies and the same decision follows: THE QUOTE IS NOT EDITED. The unmapped characters are the ones carrying the claim, and no code-to-character table is possible - in one sentence of this corpus the same code is '=' once and 'tau' twice. Repair needs the source PDF and is a re-staging job, costed and refused (0 of 114 appendable; a per-record re-stage fixes 21 and breaks 223). Three sibling rows were found ALREADY ruled under this same pass and are untouched. also in: elongated stimuli | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | nonelongated stimuli Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: RULED, NOT PREVIOUSLY ADJUDICATED. This quote carries an unmapped font glyph and was not covered by the 2026-08-25 ruling, which reached only rows flagged with glyph damage. The same reasoning applies and the same decision follows: THE QUOTE IS NOT EDITED. The unmapped characters are the ones carrying the claim, and no code-to-character table is possible - in one sentence of this corpus the same code is '=' once and 'tau' twice. Repair needs the source PDF and is a re-staging job, costed and refused (0 of 114 appendable; a per-record re-stage fixes 21 and breaks 223). Three sibling rows were found ALREADY ruled under this same pass and are untouched. also in: nonelongated stimuli | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | task instruction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: task instruction | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | subjective visibility rating Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: subjective visibility rating | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | prime contrast Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prime contrast | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | low-level image properties Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: low-level image properties | content_tags.variables[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | target elongation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: target elongation | content_tags.variables[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | N = 23 — Participants retained in Experiment 1 after exclusions 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 | N = 27 — Participants retained in Experiment 2 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 | 640 trials — Total trials per participant in the Experiment 1 main session, 32 per condition 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 | 0.27 ± 0.03 — Michelson contrast of the suppressed primes in Experiment 1, mean and SEM Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. value source note: The value is written with the paper's own symbol (±). Our copy of the text prints it as a '6' ('0.27 6 0.03 (mean 6 SEM)'), because the maths characters in the source file were mis-mapped when the text was extracted. We hold no PDF of this paper: the ± is read from the sentence itself, which gives the figure as a mean and its standard error ('mean 6 SEM'). | content_tags.quantities[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 11 and −12 ms — Size of the facilitatory and the reversed shape-priming effects in the shape task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: ignificant RT differences (8–12 ms) reported by Almeida et al. (2014). - THE RESULT OR THE NUMBER IS THE CITED WORK'S. Read, not swept - the trailing-citation shape is about 55% precise and the main clause is what decides it. Second reading pass over the 25 candidates left after 2026-08-25 11:39: 9 marked, 16 refused. the 8-12 ms range is Almeida et al. (2014)'s, quoted as the yardstick this paper's 11 and 12 ms are measured against. · about this quote: DAMAGED GLYPHS IN THIS QUOTE: (cid:3). These are raw PDF font glyph indices that leaked out in place of the characters they stand for - usually a mathematical operator. The quote is verbatim to the staged text and its anchor is sound; the STAGED TEXT is what is damaged. NOT repaired: the cid-to-character mapping is defined by the font embedded in that particular PDF, so guessing it would produce a clean and unverifiable quote. Repair needs the source PDF and is a re-staging job. · value source note: The value is written with a minus sign. Our copy of the text prints '(cid:3)' ('11 and (cid:3)12 ms'). We hold no PDF of this paper, and the character alone does not settle the sign: the same printed character is a minus in this paper's other sentences where the sense requires one, and an earlier sentence in the same paragraph names the two effects as a facilitatory one and 'a reversed (albeit not robust) RT difference' - so the second figure is the reversed, negative one. | content_tags.quantities[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 7.58% — Share of correct trials discarded as reaction-time outliers under the interquartile-range rule in Experiment 1 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 | 48% — Proportion of participants excluded on awareness checks in the study being replicated, against 15% and 7% in these two experiments 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 | N = 22 — Sample size the a priori power analysis called for, at dz = 0.55 and 80% power Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: THE MATHS LAYER OF THE STAGED TEXT WAS MOJIBAKE AND HAS BEEN REPAIRED. This paper's extraction rendered '=' as U+00BC (the vulgar fraction one quarter) and '+' as U+00FE (thorn), so the quote read 'p ¼ 0.01' where the paper says 'p = 0.01'. It passed every check we own, because the staged text said the same wrong thing: the offsets were right and the recorded hash of the staged text matched. Repaired only where the character stands in an operator's place - spaced, with a number after it - because the same U+00BC is a REAL QUARTER in six other papers ('a ¼ inch condenser microphone'). Original in evidence as extracted, pre-repair file in an internal file. | content_tags.quantities[7] | 0.85 | 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.