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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 | 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 |
This record holds no relations between concepts. 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 | critique 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 | pedagogical conversational agents in education 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 | |
| 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 | |
| limitations | Selection and analysis rested on the authors' subjective decisions, mitigated but not removed by peer-reviewed screening and two coding waves. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: every inclusion and coding decision: INESCAPABLE LIMITATIONS REGARDING SUBJECTIVELY DRIVEN DECISIONS DURING THE SLR, reduced by peer review rather than removed | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Relevant publications may have been missed during screening despite the breadth of databases and search terms. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the completeness of the survey: IT IS STILL POSSIBLE THAT RELEVANT PUBLICATIONS MIGHT HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED DURING THE SCREENING PROCESS | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The review captures only a fast-moving field's current state; later searches may give different results. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the shelf life of the findings: AS THE FIELD IS EVOLVING QUICKLY, WE CAN ONLY PROVIDE THE CURRENT STATE OF THE FIELD AND FUTURE SEARCHES ... MIGHT YIELD DIFFERENT RESULTS | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The overview of the field excludes every publication not in English or German, so the reported state of the art is bounded by the reviewers' languages. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: this review as a holistic overview of conversational agents in education: publications in any language other than English or German were excluded by the stated criteria | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The review declares its own selection subjective, and states that this is normal for the method rather than particular to this team. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the coverage of any systematic literature review including this one: the authors state the selection and analysis process rests on subjective decisions, as is common for SLRs | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The claim about the field's maturity is an inference from how often software names recur, not a measurement of the systems. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the claim that pedagogical conversational agents remain prototypes: it is an assumption drawn from software names being referenced only once and not developed in later publications | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The review's own object is defined by publication facts as much as by content: papers in any language other than English or German are excluded, as is everything published before 2016. A reader takes the resulting picture as the state of the field, and the record already carries that reading as a sense. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | 186 publications from before 2016 were excluded, leaving 386 for analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the review's picture of the field is dominated by work predating the technology it is about · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | exclusion criteria Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: exclusion criteria | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | pedagogical CAs Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: pedagogical CAs | concepts[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | systematic literature Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: systematic literature | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | prototype development Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: prototype development | concepts[3] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| senses | state of the art in pedagogical conversational agents - AS VISIBLE THROUGH THIS REVIEW: what seven databases return, filtered to English and German, and screened by subjective decisions 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 | maturity of a pedagogical conversational agent - inferred from BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECURRENCE: a system named once and not developed further is taken as evidence of a prototype stage 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 | research method - in this field mostly PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT (95 of 252 papers), evaluated mainly quantitatively; so 'method' here names what was BUILT more often than what was tested Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Webster and Watson (2002), Page et al. (2021), and Schoormann et al. (2021) 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 → Gubareva and Lopes (2020) role taxonomy for pedagogical conversational agents 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 → Strohmann (2021) and Diederich et al. (2022) 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 | |
| claim_relations | contradicts → cross-domain conversational-agent literature reviews (Diederich et al., 2022) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Only five of the 252 coded articles reported long-term studies of conversational agents in education. 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 | Pedagogical CAs act most often as tutors (31%), then as motivators and organizers (21% each), mentors (18%) and moderators (9%). 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 | Academic students are the target group in 78% of the studies, high school students in 6%. 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 | "Chatbot" appears in 167 of the 252 articles (85%); "virtual companion(ship)" in only 2. 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 | 136 publications reference psychological or learning theories, and 80% of the theories mentioned come from educational research. 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 | Google Dialogflow (37%) and IBM Watson Assistant (30%) are the two building platforms most often used to implement pedagogical CAs. 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 | Most of the reviewed studies evaluate their agents on small samples, so their results may not be representative. 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 | Exactly one of the 252 papers offers prescriptive design knowledge in the form of a nascent design theory, and it is confined to argumentation skills. 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 | Just 5% of the articles address professional development outside academia. 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 | A large share of the reviewed authors design their conversational agent without grounding it in any scientific theory. 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 | conversational agent Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conversational agent | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | pedagogical conversational agent Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: pedagogical conversational agent | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | virtual companion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: virtual companion | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | social cues Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: social cues | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | computers as social actors Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: computers as social actors | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 252 — number of articles fully coded in the review after screening 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 | 3891 — total records returned by the database search before screening 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 | 95 — papers whose research method is prototype development 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 | 82 — studies that include an experimental setting 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 | 18 — papers that explicitly follow a user-centred design approach 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 | five — studies out of 252 that were long-term studies 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 | 78% — share of studies whose target group is academic students 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 | 80% — share of the cited theories that originate in educational research 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 | 37% — share of implementations using Google Dialogflow as building platform 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 | |
| content_tags | 31% — share of pedagogical CAs occupying the tutor role Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[9] | 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.