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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 | associative priming in lexical decision 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 data cannot decide between the spreading-excitation and location-shifting accounts of the dependence. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The authors have no way to test all candidate explanations of the association effect. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[1] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Experiment II's reaction times cannot directly test the serial-decision model. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[2] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| controls | half of the practice and test trials required a 'yes' response Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that a reaction-time difference is a response bias - subjects favouring one key because it is used more often · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | each subject was randomly assigned one of the lists in one of the orders, so that every list-order combination was used exactly once Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that the effect depends on a particular list or a particular presentation order · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | lexical decision Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: lexical decision | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | association Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: association | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | dependence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: dependence | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | spreading excitation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: spreading excitation | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | location shifting Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: location shifting | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | THE FIRST MEASUREMENT OF THE EFFECT, WITH ITS ERROR BAR: `Quotation withheld (1, 11) = 20.6, p < .001.` Two strings shown at once, one above the other, decide whether both are words. There is no prime and no target - the design is simultaneous and symmetric, which is worth holding onto, because everything downstream assumes a sequence and an asymmetry that this experiment did not have 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 PAPER DECLINES THE INFERENCE ITS OWN NAME WOULD LATER REST ON: `Quotation withheld.` The founding result of semantic priming, and its authors say in the discussion that it does not establish semantic retrieval. The word `semantic` in `semantic priming` is a claim this sentence explicitly withholds - and the withholding is not hedging, it is followed by a worked alternative in which association affects RT through the organisation of memory locations rather than through meaning 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 | TWO MECHANISMS, NO TEST, AND THE PAPER SAYS SO RATHER THAN PICKING: `Quotation withheld.` It then does something better than choosing - it asks what survives the choice: `Quotation withheld.` The result is stated at the level the data supports and the mechanism is left open, which is exactly what neely1977 spends 28 pages building an experiment to settle six years later 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 LIMITATION IS STATED IN ONE FLAT SENTENCE WITH NO SOFTENING: `Quotation withheld.` No `future work will`, no `it remains to be seen`. This corpus has 539 records and I have read few limitation sentences this short - and it belongs to the paper that started the literature, which is the opposite of the order one would expect confidence to arrive in Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | contradicts → Schaeffer and Wallace (1969, 1970) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Meyer (1971) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | spreading excitation —distinct-from→ location shifting Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.85 · note: THE EDGE IS CARRIED BY A LIST, WHICH IS WHY IT IS 0.85 AND NOT HIGHER. The sentence that draws the contrast explicitly - 'the present data…' - writes both names hyphenated, and the concept nodes are the unhyphenated forms. So the triple is built from the sentence that lists them as alternatives instead. Distinctness is genuinely asserted there - 'regardless of whether X, Y, Z, or some other process' only makes sense if they are different processes - but it is asserted in passing, on the way to saying the effect survives the question. The stronger sentence exists; a hyphen keeps it out, exactly as a plural kept the logogen edge out of neely1977 an hour ago. Two edges lost to orthography in one evening is worth recording as a pattern rather than as two accidents.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span lists spreading excitation and location shifting as alternative processes; distinct-from is loose. also in: spreading excitation · location shifting | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | semantic priming: associated word pairs are recognized faster than unassociated pairs 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 | the association effect is consistent and sizeable across subjects 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 | association Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: association | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ANOVA 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: ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | p-value 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: p-value | content_tags.statistics[1] | 0.85 | 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[2] | 0.85 | 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[3] | 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.