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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 | 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 | racial code-word framing of crime policy opinion 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 authors do not claim their frame is the subtlest possible racial cue; many respondents openly equate the inner city with black Americans. 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 design tests policy preferences only; extension to candidate preferences is asserted but untested. 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 analysis is restricted to white respondents; the African-American subsample was dropped for lack of variance on the outcome. 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 | |
| controls | the experiment administered at random to half of the white sample, 290 respondents Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: self-selection into the experimental condition, and any difference between the people who saw the framing manipulation and those who did not · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | issue framing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: issue framing | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | racial stereotypes Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: racial stereotypes | concepts[3] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | code words Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: code words | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | racial attitudes Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: racial attitudes | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | THE EFFECT IS NOT A SHIFT IN THE ANSWER - IT IS A CHANGE IN WHAT PREDICTS IT. `whites' racial attitudes (for example, racial stereotypes) were much more important in shaping preferences for punitive policies when they receive the racially coded, `inner city` question.` The outcome here is a REGRESSION COEFFICIENT, not a mean or a latency: the same people, the same policy question, and a different thing driving their answer depending on two words. A corpus that stores `prime -> outcome, direction: increases` cannot express this at all - the direction is not up or down, it is `your prior attitudes now matter more to what you say` 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 | THE SMALLEST PRIME IN THIS CORPUS, AND THE AUTHORS SAY SO DELIBERATELY: `Quotation withheld (like `welfare queens`).` Two words inserted into one survey item. Every other prime in this corpus is a word list, an image, a scent, a room, a sentence structure or a period of noise; this is a modifier. And the minimalism is the argument - the paper's point is that after the Willie Horton ad made blatant appeals costly, what remains available is this small 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 CAUSAL CLAIM IS EXACT BECAUSE THE DESIGN IS THAT SIMPLE: `Quotation withheld.` The inference chain is stated in full and each link is separable - the two words differ, therefore the difference is theirs, therefore the group was brought to mind, therefore the policy was judged by the group. `It seems clear` marks where the demonstration ends and the interpretation begins 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 | IMPLICIT BEATS EXPLICIT, AND THAT IS AN EMPIRICAL CLAIM ABOUT PERSUASION RATHER THAN ABOUT COGNITION: a blatant message `would, today, be either unproductive or counterproductive because, as a number of studies suggest, implicit appeals are much more effective.` Most of this corpus treats implicitness as a methodological device for isolating automatic processing. Here it is a STRATEGIC property with a history: the Willie Horton ad made the explicit version expensive, so the implicit one is what survives 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 → Nelson and Kinder (1996), group-centric issue framing 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 | extends → Mendelberg (2001), implicit/explicit racial appeals and the Willie Horton ad 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 → Druckman (2001), limits of elite framing 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 | issue framing —causes→ racial attitudes Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: NO effect direction, AND THIS IS THE CLEAREST CASE YET FOR WHY THAT AXIS DOES NOT FIT EVERY EDGE. The code word does not increase or reduce racial attitudes - it increases how much they PREDICT the policy answer. The vocabulary has no term for 'raises the weight of', and 'increases' would be read as 'makes people more prejudiced', which is not what was measured and would be a serious misreading of a paper about race. Weight 0.9: the design supports the causal claim, and the quantity it acts on needs the note.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but racial attitudes mattered more under racially coded frames; causes from 'issue framing' is loose. also in: issue framing · racial attitudes | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | racial attitudes shaped punitive-policy preferences much more when the coded 'inner city' cue was present 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 | a single coded phrase ('inner city') can carry strong racial connotations 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 | the authors situate the effect within the issue-framing literature 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 | support for punitive crime policy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: support for punitive crime policy | content_tags.variables[1] | 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.