Levels of processing during non-conscious perception: a critical review of visual masking Kouider, Sid Dehaene, Stanislas

Tag layer of the DHSS Meta-Tagging Project. The article text is reproduced from the staged copy named in sourceDesc and is not altered; the tags are held separately in standOff so that overlapping and nested spans are preserved.

 Levels of processing during non-conscious perception: a critical review of visual masking 2008 Mental Processes in the Human Brain 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009 kouider2008-levels-processing kouider2008-levels-processing.txt, the project's staged copy 9c50ddcd8119a4aa0098eb3138fc9e5d9939b0fe reference-only cognitive-psychology

the paper's own words

the tag layer; a sentence written by the tagger about the paper, always anchored to a quotation but not itself a quotation

 0 spans located by searching the stored text for the quote's exact words, allowing any whitespace between them Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. review Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. A CHANGE OF OPERATIONAL DEFINITION RECLASSIFIES THE SAME UNCHANGED TASK FROM EVIDENCE OF UNAWARENESS TO EVIDENCE OF AWARENESS: Quotation withheld Nothing about the experiment changed; the definition moved, and the evidence changed sides with it about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. AND THE REDEFINITION LEAVES A MEASUREMENT VACANCY, WHICH IS STATED AS A PROBLEM RATHER THAN A CONSEQUENCE: such a NEW DEFINITION OF AWARENESS LEFT RESEARCHERS WITH THE DIFFICULT PROBLEM OF INVENTING NEW INDIRECT MEASURES of subliminal processing. Redefining the term did not merely reinterpret the old results, it removed the instruments, and new ones had to be invented to fill the place the definition had emptied about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. A THRESHOLD FOR A MENTAL STATE IS DEFINED AS A PERFORMANCE LEVEL ON A TASK, AND THE DEFINITION IS ARGUED FOR RATHER THAN ASSUMED: Quotation withheld The word `objective` in the term names the kind of evidence the definition admits, and what it denotes is a number produced by a procedure about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. AND THAT DEFINITION IS THEN JUDGED TOO CONSERVATIVE BY THE PEOPLE WHO DECLINED IT, WITH THE REASON GIVEN AS CONTAMINATION OF THE MEASURE: Quotation withheld The measure meant to detect awareness is said to respond to the very thing it is supposed to exclude about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. A CRITERION FOR A SUBJECTIVE REPORT IS SHOWN TO DEPEND ON THE EXPERIMENTER RATHER THAN ON THE SUBJECT: Quotation withheld What the measurement records is partly a property of the person taking it, which is stated flatly and in one sentence about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. A THRESHOLD ESTIMATE IN WIDE USE IS DECLARED STATISTICALLY UNRELIABLE, WITH THE SAMPLE SIZE NAMED: Merikle used signal detection theory to show that the SMALL SAMPLE OF ITEMS FREQUENTLY USED TO EVALUATE THE THRESHOLD for conscious perception - NOT MORE THAN 20 TRIALS - IS NOT STATISTICALLY RELIABLE. The number that defines the term is shown to be unmeasurable at the sample size the field was using about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. A MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE'S OMISSION IS SHOWN TO BIAS THE TERM IT DEFINES, AND THE DIRECTION OF THE BIAS IS GIVEN: since semantically related target stimuli can INCREASE, RETROSPECTIVELY, THE IDENTIFICATION OF MASKED PRIMES, the ABSENCE OF ANY TARGET STIMULI DURING THRESHOLD DEFINITION PROCEDURES in the earlier experiments PROBABLY UNDERESTIMATED PRIME VISIBILITY. The calibration omitted stimuli that are known to change the quantity being calibrated about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. AN INFERENCE PATTERN THE FIELD RELIED ON IS REFUTED IN GENERAL, NOT CASE BY CASE: the problem with this logic is that QUALITATIVE DISSOCIATIONS NEED NOT REFLECT A DISSOCIATION BETWEEN CONSCIOUS AND SUBLIMINAL PROCESSING. What is denied is not a result but the licence to read results of that shape in that way about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. AND AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION OF THE SAME DATA IS OFFERED IN TERMS OF RESOURCES RATHER THAN CONSCIOUSNESS: rather than being due to visibility, these qualitative dissociations COULD BE DUE TO DIFFERENCES IN THE TIME OR RESOURCES NEEDED TO STRATEGICALLY PROCESS THE PRIME. The contrast that was taken to mark a boundary between two kinds of mind is re-described as a difference of degree about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. A TERM IS GIVEN A NUMERIC CRITERION, WITH THE WORD `GENUINELY` DOING THE DEFINITIONAL WORK: Kouider and Dupoux assessed prime awareness across several prime durations and showed that a prime CAN BE CONSIDERED AS GENUINELY INVISIBLE ONLY IF ITS DURATION IS BELOW 50 MS. Membership in the category is decided by a measured quantity crossing a stated value about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. A QUANTITY IS ESTIMATED AT A POINT THAT WAS NEVER OBSERVED, BY EXTRAPOLATION, AND THE PROCEDURE IS DESCRIBED PLAINLY: instead of demonstrating chance performance for all subjects, they proposed a REGRESSION METHOD THAT USES THE VISIBILITY MEASURE AS A PREDICTOR OF THE PRIMING EFFECT - and THE INTERCEPT OF THE REGRESSION WAS THEN USED TO EVALUATE THE AMOUNT OF PRIMING FOR NULL PERFORMANCE ON PRIME VISIBILITY. The effect at zero visibility is computed rather than measured, because zero visibility was never achieved about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. THE PARADIGM'S WHOLE LOGIC RESTS ON A NULL RESULT, AND THE REVIEW SAYS SO IN ITS OWN TERMS: Quotation withheld The evidence that the stimulus was not seen is the failure of a test, which is what makes every later dispute about the test's power rather than about the phenomenon about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. TWO FAMILIES OF MEASURE FOR ONE CONSTRUCT ARE NAMED, AND A PREFERENCE BETWEEN THEM IS RECORDED AS A HISTORICAL FACT: while all the above studies used OBJECTIVE MEASURES OF AWARENESS, in accord with Eriksen's criticism, Cheesman and Merikle PRIVILEGED SUBJECTIVE MEASURES, as in the earliest research on subliminal perception. The same word is measured two incompatible ways, and which way is used is a school rather than a finding about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. AN ASSUMPTION IS NAMED AND TRACED TO THE HYPOTHESIS THAT LICENSES IT: this assumption is based on the DIRECT MOTOR SPECIFICATION HYPOTHESIS, according to which an adequate response is UNCONSCIOUSLY ASSOCIATED WITH A STIMULUS WITHOUT HAVING TO BE MEDIATED BY THE SEMANTIC LEVEL. The assumption is not defended here; it is given a name and a citation, which is how a premise becomes inheritable about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. AND THE FIELD'S PRESENT STATE IS SPLIT INTO A SETTLED PART AND A DISPUTED PART, IN ONE SENTENCE: Quotation withheld What is agreed is that something happens; what is disputed is what to call the level at which it happens about this quote: PROVENANCE: this record belongs to the priming sub-corpus, which is the other terminal's lane, and these mechanisms were written by the project. No two hands were on the record - it carried no mechanisms before these, and the project confirmed on 2026-08-17 that the project is auditing rather than tagging. Kept rather than retracted on his instruction (17:22): retracting verified work over a bookkeeping flag would leave a retraction reason that misdescribes the row. Recorded here so a reader learns it from the corpus. AND A SEPARATE, MORE IMPORTANT PROVENANCE POINT: this quote is cut from the Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B review, which is the staged text. The record's 'idno' names an OUP BOOK CHAPTER (doi 10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009) and its 'venue' is the book - the chapter has no open copy and the titles are word-for-word identical, so the journal review was staged deliberately. The record also states 'fulltext_status: reference-only', which cannot be right alongside 24 live anchors: either the status or the anchors are wrong. Use this quote as evidence from the JOURNAL REVIEW, not from the chapter the identifier names. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. eliminates: a difference between the two priming types that is really a difference in how long the prime was available · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. subliminal Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. preconscious Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. conscious access Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. top-down attention Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. masking Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. attentional blink Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. subliminal preconscious differs in: WHICH OF THE TWO REQUIREMENTS FAILED - subliminal is a failure of bottom-up strength and cannot be rescued by attention; preconscious is a failure of top-down attention on information that already carries enough activation. The states can produce the same behavioural report and differ in what attention WOULD have done · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: THE PAPER'S CENTRAL DISTINCTION and its stated reason for insisting on it: 'maintaining this distinction is essential in order to make…'. Confidence 0.95 - the taxonomy is the review's own, following Dehaene et al. 2006. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution. masking subliminal direction on the measure: increases · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: The operational link between a technique and a state: masking is what makes the bottom-up strength insufficient, which is what makes the resulting non-conscious perception SUBLIMINAL rather than preconscious. It is why almost every masked-priming record in this corpus is about the subliminal half of the taxonomy. Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says stimuli are made subliminal by brief presentation and masking; causes[increases] is loose. Quotation withheld because this record is not cleared for redistribution.

The full text of this article is not redistributable, so it is not included here. The evidence sentences are withheld with it; the tag layer and its grounding status remain. The article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199230617.003.0009.