Mathematical Representation and Quotation withheld

Asha K. Jitendra, et al. · Exceptional Children · 2016 · education · 10.1177/0014402915625062 · record jitendra2016-math
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (pdftext); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. TITLE MISMATCH: the queue metadata gives the title as 'Mathematical Representation and Quotation withheld', but the article text itself is titled 'Is Mathematical Representation of Problems an Evidence-Based Strategy for Students With Mathematics Difficulties?'. All facets follow the article text, not the metadata. Claim type is 'method' because the conclusion certifies an instructional strategy as an evidence-based practice; a case could be made for 'existence' (the effect is real), but the article's own result sentence is framed around the practice meeting evidence criteria. The 'replicates' relation is the paper's own word 'support the results of prior research' applied to a synthesis rather than a re-run study. The extraction duplicates one sentence ('When instructional strategies include opportunities for students to interact with the objects...') and scrambles the Table 1-3 numeric columns; no facet depends on those regions. The paper also reports that under the competing CEC (2014) standards none of the studies qualify, which is a methodological caveat about evidence standards rather than a limitation of this review's own design, so it was not recorded as a limitation. 2026-08-19 and 2026-08-25 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node. Update, 15 September 2026: EXCEPTION, measured with the merge gate's own predicate (Paper.locate): 3 quote(s) on this record are not found as one exact string in the current staged text - content_tags.definitions[0].evidence, content_tags.findings[0].evidence, content_tags.statistics[1].evidence. The sentence above does not hold for them as written. Where a row records why - the quote is grounded in another copy of the paper, joins two passages with an ellipsis, or differs from the staged text by extraction noise - that note stays on the row.

3 quotes on this page break a word across a line. The PDF this text was extracted from hyphenated those words at the end of a printed line — adversar- ial, repre- sentations — and the extractor kept the hyphen and the space. The quotes keep them because a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing: the break is the typesetter’s, not the author’s. A search of this page will not find the affected words.

This record’s own method is systematic-review, and the tags below follow from that. A review’s findings, quantities and statistics are things stated IN this paper, and some of them report results obtained elsewhere. No tag on this page names a different author. Measured across every review in this corpus, 81% of a review’s tags carry no citation at all — most of them are the review speaking. The corpus does not adjudicate the rest: read an unmarked tag as a claim this paper makes, not necessarily one it made first.

2 quotes on this page were cut from a different copy of this article. This project holds two extractions of this paper: the plain text every other quote here is anchored in, and the publisher’s own HTML edition, which we are not licensed to republish. They are verbatim in the second and cannot be found in the first — not because the tagging is wrong, but because the extraction damaged the passage: a page number dropped into the middle of a number, a formula moved out of its sentence, a ligature where two letters belong. The record names the copy for each one. The quote is the paper’s; the extraction is not.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in 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.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
representation 47 fields · learning 7 fields · sample-size 5 fields · systematic-review 4 fields · standard-deviation 3 fields · priming 2 fields · and 4 more →

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 10 concept tags on this paper, 3 are grounded in a quoted sentence. 3 carry the tagger's gloss of what the term means in this paper, which is not something the article can license.

priming schema priming mathematical representation problem solving association secondariness modulation quality indicators evidence-based practices representation mathematics students schema instruction learning disabilities interventions achievement learning disabilities mathematics difficulties mathematics achievement confidence-interval confidence interval correlation effect-size effect sizes mean group means sample-size sample sizes standard-deviation standard deviations standard-error Standard Errors statistical-significance systematic-review

Legend

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	`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
transfer	`transfers`	a method or concept carried in from another field

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915625062. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 3 · claim_type 1 · concepts 3 · content_tags 12 · controls 1 · limitations 4 · method 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 3 · transfers 1

This record holds no relations between concepts or 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	method 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	mathematical problem representation instruction 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	systematic-review Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: systematic-review	`method`		the paper's words
limitations	some methodological quality components were unmet across the reviewed studies, to be addressed by future research Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the strength of the review's conclusions: FUTURE RESEARCHERS [must] ADDRESS THE COMPONENTS THAT DID NOT MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OR WERE FREQUENTLY UNMET	`limitations[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Representations were bundled into multicomponent interventions, so their independent contribution cannot be isolated. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any claim about representations specifically: THE MAJORITY OF STUDIES INCLUDED REPRESENTATIONS AS PART OF MULTICOMPONENT INTERVENTIONS, MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE THE INFLUENCE OF REPRESENTATIONS	`limitations[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Which intervention element drove the outcomes is unknown because elements varied across studies. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any attribution of the outcome to a particular element: IT IS NOT CLEAR WHICH ELEMENT OR COMBINATION OF ELEMENTS WAS RELATED TO THE OUTCOME	`limitations[2]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The conditions under which the practice works were not established. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any implementation guidance: THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE PRACTICE OF REPRESENTING PROBLEMS IS EFFECTIVE WAS ALSO NOT CLEAR	`limitations[3]`		the tagger's words
transfers	schema-based instruction and mathematical representations grounded in cognitive-load theory, applied to teaching students with learning difficulties 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	a fixed 25th-percentile cutoff for at-risk status, with studies using a higher cutoff excluded and mixed samples required to disaggregate or be majority LD/at-risk Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the pooled effect is diluted by studies counting higher-attaining children as at risk - the cutoff is fixed to the published convention rather than to what each study chose · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.85	the tagger's words
concepts	quality indicators Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: quality indicators	`concepts[7]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	evidence-based practices Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: evidence-based practices	`concepts[8]`	0.95	the paper's words
concepts	representation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: representation	`concepts[9]`	0.95	the paper's words
senses	A LITERATURE GRADED AGAINST A PUBLISHED CHECKLIST, AND THE ATTRITION IS ITEMISED RATHER THAN SCORED. 25 studies reviewed; `Thirteen of the 25 studies provided strong evidence of rigorous research across the four categories of the essential QIs`; and `Quotation withheld.` 25 to 13 to 8, with each drop attributable to a named criterion rather than to a composite score. That is the `tool must be checkable` principle applied to a whole field: external criteria, per-criterion grading, failures named 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 MISSING INDICATORS ARE NAMED ONE BY ONE, WHICH IS WHAT MAKES THE REVIEW ACTIONABLE: one study `failed to provide sufficient information on teachers delivering the intervention`; of the eight high-quality studies `only five ... also documented that data collectors were blind to conditions`; only one `provided information on the quality of implementation`; and `Quotation withheld` - a zero across all 25. A reviewer reading this knows exactly what the next study should add, which a quality SCORE would not have told 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	THE VERDICT IS EXPLICITLY RELATIVE TO ITS CRITERIA: `Quotation withheld.` The qualifier is inside the claim. `Evidence-based` is not asserted as a property of the practice but as the output of a named, published standard - so a reader who rejects the standard knows exactly what they are rejecting, and a different standard could give a different answer without either party being wrong about the studies 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
claim_relations	builds-on → Gersten et al. (2005) evidence-based-practice criteria 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 → Gersten et al. (2005) quality indicators for group research 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	replicates → Gersten, Beckmann et al. (2009); Gersten, Chard et al. (2009) 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
content_tags	0.46 — effect size for teacher and student use of visual representations 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	Use of visual representations yielded an effect size of 0.46 for teachers and students. 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	mathematics achievement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mathematics achievement	`content_tags.variables[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	learning disabilities Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: learning disabilities	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	mathematics difficulties Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mathematics difficulties	`content_tags.definitions[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	confidence-interval 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: confidence-interval	`content_tags.statistics[0]`		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: 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: effect-size	`content_tags.statistics[2]`		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[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	sample-size 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: sample-size	`content_tags.statistics[4]`		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[5]`		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. 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-error	`content_tags.statistics[6]`		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[7]`		the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

content_tags.findings[0] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: declared-ellipsis - An elided quote: the dots ('...') mark where words were left out, and the first part stops mid-word ('high l...'). The quote keeps two line-break hyphens from the web page we fetched ('teach- ers', 'strat- egy'); the text we tag against prints those words whole. The second part also leaves out one word without marking it: the paper has 'An effective approach', the quote 'an approach'.
content_tags.definitions[0] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
this quote's status: quote-not-in-current-staged-text · about this quote: marked quote-not-in-current-staged-text - today's merge gate would REFUSE this quote: Paper.locate() does not find it in the current staged text. · NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original page we fetched for this paper ('fulltext.html'), but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside. This body carries no measurable character damage at all.
content_tags.statistics[1] — quotation withheld — the page has already reproduced as much of this paper as the rights budget allows
NOT MACHINE-VOUCHED: not-in-our-copy - The quote is in the original web page we fetched for this paper, but not in the text we tag against, which was extracted differently. Checked with ligatures, hyphens, spacing and punctuation set aside.

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.