Quotation withheld

George A. Miller · Psychological Review · 1956 · psychology · 10.1037/h0043158 · record miller1956-magical-number
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (html); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. Claim type is 'existence' (a definite capacity limit exists and recurs across modalities); the paper also contains an internal null-result - the author's own constant-information hypothesis for memory span was disconfirmed by Hayes's and Pollack's data - but that is a rejected hypothesis rather than the shape of the paper's contribution. method is 'review' because the paper is an invited address assembling other investigators' experiments (Pollack, Garner, Hake, Eriksen, Klemmer and Frick, Hayes, Smith) rather than reporting one new study. Replication status is 'replicated' on the paper's own testimony: it reports that Pollack repeated Hayes's memory-span experiment with essentially the same result and that Coonan and Klemmer repeated Hake and Garner - no outside knowledge used. Only relations naming prior work in the text were recorded; the many bare citations to individual data sets were not turned into relations. 2026-08-12, 2026-08-14 and 2026-08-15 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.

This record’s own method is 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.

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
memory 23 fields · working memory 4 fields · information 4 fields · standard-deviation 3 fields · statistical-significance 2 fields · noise 2 fields · and 1 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 17 concept tags on this paper, 2 are grounded in a quoted sentence. 13 carry the tagger's gloss of what the term means in this paper, which is not something the article can license.

working memory chunking information processing channel capacity span of absolute judgment span of immediate memory span of attention chunk bit recoding absolute judgment transmitted information variance information theory communication channel unidimensional noise the human observer behaves like a limited-capacity communication channel: absolute judgment saturates at a channel capacity of about 2.5 bits (~7 categories) information bits judgment memory capacity seven stimuli channel amount of information amount of information in the stimuli amount of transmitted information mean average of standard-deviation standard deviation statistical-significance review

Legend

second reading	`alternatives`	an independent re-reading of a facet, recorded whether or not it agrees
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
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
object of study	`object_of_study`	what the paper is about — the thing it investigates
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/10.1037/h0043158. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

alternatives 2 · claim_relations 6 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 8 · concepts 2 · content_tags 26 · limitations 10 · mechanisms 6 · method 1 · object_of_study 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 5 · transfers 3

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; 1 of 8 relations here carries that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.

This record holds no controls. 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
object_of_study	The recurring limit of about seven in absolute judgment, attention and immediate memory, and whether those limits are one thing or several. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`object_of_study`		the paper's words
claim_type	existence 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	span of absolute judgment and span of immediate memory 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	review Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: 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. also in: the human observer behaves like a limited-capacity communication channel: absolute judgment saturates at a channel capacity of about 2.5 bits (~7 categories)	`mechanisms[0]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	Treating the observer as a communication channel makes the limit measurable: input information is raised until transmitted information stops rising, and that asymptote is the capacity 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
mechanisms	Immediate memory holds a fixed number of chunks rather than a fixed number of bits, which is why it behaves unlike absolute judgment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[2]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	Because the limit is in chunks, packing more information into each chunk raises how much can be held without raising the count Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[3]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	Recoding is the operation that builds bigger chunks: group the input, name the group, remember the name Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[4]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	Adding dimensions and accepting cruder judgments on each raises the span of absolute judgment far beyond seven Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[5]`		the tagger's words
limitations	the recurrence of 'seven' across channel capacity and memory span may be merely coincidental Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the recurrence of seven across channel capacity and memory span: THERE SEEMS TO BE A REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A COINCIDENCE	`limitations[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The suggested span of perceptual dimensionality (about ten) is stated to have no supporting objective evidence. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the span of perceptual dimensionality: THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS SUSPICION	`limitations[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Some reported channel-capacity values are probably underestimates because data were pooled across subjects before computing transmitted information. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the channel-capacity values: THESE VALUES ARE APT TO BE SLIGHTLY TOO LOW BECAUSE THE DATA FROM ALL SUBJECTS WERE POOLED BEFORE THE TRANSMITTED INFORMATION WAS COMPUTED	`limitations[2]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The central theoretical unit, the chunk, is not precisely defined. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: every claim counted in chunks: WE ARE NOT VERY DEFINITE ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHUNK OF INFORMATION	`limitations[3]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The subitizing comparison rests on a guess, since the number-estimation data were never analysed in informational terms. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the subitizing comparison: THE DATA ON NUMBER ESTIMATES HAVE NOT BEEN ANALYZED IN INFORMATIONAL TERMS, and the four-bit figure is offered as a guess	`limitations[4]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The paper's own closing position is that the recurring seven is probably coincidence, not one underlying limit Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the seven itself: I SUSPECT THAT IT IS ONLY A PERNICIOUS, PYTHAGOREAN COINCIDENCE	`limitations[5]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The unit that the memory limit is counted in is admitted to be undefined Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the same scope as limitations[3] - the unit the memory limit is counted in is undefined	`limitations[6]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The chunk independence holds only over the range tested so far, which the author states rather than assumes Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the chunk-independence claim: AT LEAST OVER THE RANGE THAT HAS BEEN EXAMINED TO DATE	`limitations[7]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The span of seven is claimed for unidimensional judgments specifically, not judgments in general Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the span of seven specifically: I MAINTAIN THAT FOR UNIDIMENSIONAL JUDGMENTS THIS SPAN IS USUALLY SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF SEVEN - not judgments in general	`limitations[8]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The information-theoretic machinery is deliberately paraphrased away, so the argument as presented cannot be checked against the formalism it rests on Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the argument as presented: IN THE INTERESTS OF COMMUNICATION I HAVE SUPPRESSED THE TECHNICAL DETAILS OF INFORMATION MEASUREMENT	`limitations[9]`		the tagger's words
transfers	analyzing the limits of human perception and memory using information theory (channel capacity, bits) 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
transfers	Shannon's information measure, the channel and its capacity, carried into psychology - and the paper is explicit that the experiments would not exist without it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[1]`		the tagger's words
transfers	A translation table offered in the other direction, so psychologists could read the information measure as the variance they already knew Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[2]`		the tagger's words
concepts	span of immediate memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: span of immediate memory	`concepts[5]`		the paper's words
concepts	recoding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: recoding	`concepts[9]`		the paper's words
senses	seven - the span of absolute judgment: about seven categories distinguishable along one dimension, a limit in BITS 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	seven - the span of immediate memory: about seven items retained, a limit in CHUNKS and almost independent of the bits in each 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	seven - the span of attention: about six objects taken in at a glance, a third limit with a similar number and a different mechanism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	amount of information - as the paper translates it for the reader: variance, in the ordinary statistical sense Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	amount of TRANSMITTED information - covariance or correlation between input and output, a different quantity that shares most of its name Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
alternatives	claim_type: existence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: existence — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides.	`alternatives.claim_type`		the tagger's words
alternatives	phenomenon: span of absolute judgment and span of immediate memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: span of absolute judgment and span of immediate memory — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides.	`alternatives.phenomenon`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → information theory (channel capacity) 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	replicates → Hayes (10), memory-span experiment with five kinds of test material 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 → Hake and Garner (8), absolute judgment of visual position 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	builds-on → Külpe (14), abstraction experiment 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
claim_relations	extends → information theory as imported into psychology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[4]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	critiques → the assumption that immediate memory is limited by the same quantity as absolute judgment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS INFORMATION PER ITEM. 'Quotation withheld' The critique works by deriving a prediction that varies with information per item - precisely the quantity the criticised assumption holds constant.	`claim_relations[5]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	span of attention —distinct-from→ span of absolute judgment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: span of attention · span of absolute judgment	`concept_edges[1]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	chunk —distinct-from→ bit Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: chunk · bit	`concept_edges[3]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	span of immediate memory —operationalised-as→ chunk Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span relates memory span to a fixed number of chunks; operationalised-as is a loose reading. also in: span of immediate memory · chunk	`concept_edges[4]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · recoding —causes→ chunk Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. EVIDENCE CORRECTED: RE-GROUNDED. The old span describes WHAT recoding IS - 'There are many ways…' - and names only one endpoint. It carries NO EFFECT CUE AT ALL, so a 'causes' edge standing on it would fail the gate's own causes test today; it predates that rule. The replacement names both endpoints and states the effect: '…recoding INCREASES the bits per chunk'. Both spans are Miller's and both are accurate; the second is evidence for THIS TYPE and the first is not. Selected from an internal tool after reading six offers and DECLINING FIVE - cook2013's candidate carried a glued sentence-case heading, schmidhuber2015's was a contents listing, and grilli2016's and another row of this record's existing spans were STRONGER for their types than the offers (grilli2016's sentence on modular block structure; another row of this record's on a span of a fixed number of chunks). A both-endpoint span is not an improvement if it is weaker evidence for the type. — strength of the relation: 1 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but endpoint by anaphora: 'this recoding' = recoding the input into a code with fewer chunks (previous sentence). also in: recoding · chunk	`concept_edges[5]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	noise —contrasted-with→ transmitted information 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 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span separates output variance due to input from noise; contrasted-with is a loose reading. also in: noise · transmitted information	`concept_edges[8]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	recoding —causes→ span of immediate memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. status: CONJECTURED at this point in the paper - the authors say they SUSPECT it; the demonstration follows · direction on the measure: increases · strength of the relation: 1 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says a recoding procedure COULD be used to increase the span; hedged. also in: recoding · span of immediate memory	`concept_edges[11]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	span of absolute judgment —distinct-from→ span of immediate memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: RE-GROUNDS another row of this record: the old span named ONE endpoint. also in: span of absolute judgment · span of immediate memory	`concept_edges[12]`	0.9	the tagger's words
concept_edges	recoding —causes→ chunk Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span says recoding increases the bits per chunk; 'causes chunk' drops the quantity. also in: recoding · chunk	`concept_edges[13]`	0.9	the tagger's words
content_tags	EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · about 7 — the limit on the span of absolute judgment and immediate memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. EVIDENCE CORRECTED: RE-GROUNDED. The evidence was THE PAPER'S OWN TITLE - 'Quotation withheld' - which names the quantity and asserts nothing. A title is furniture in the same sense as a reference line: it says what the paper is about. The replacement is Miller STATING the quantity in his own voice, defining the span of absolute judgment and putting it 'in the neighborhood of seven'. The old span survived every check because an internal tool carried a literal 0x08 where a word boundary was meant, so the <h1> was never stripped from the body tags are checked against., measured by the project, verified here against the record's own title field.	`content_tags.quantities[0]`	0.85	the tagger's words
content_tags	about seven — the span of absolute judgment, in categories, for unidimensional stimuli 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	about seven items — the span of immediate memory, in chunks - a different quantity that happens to have the same number 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	about six objects — the span of attention, at a glance - the third of the three limits 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	at least 150 — the span of absolute judgment once many dimensions are used with crude judgments on each 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	one bit — the unit, defined as a choice between two equally likely alternatives 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	The author asks whether the discontinuity at seven reflects the same basic process that limits unidimensional judgments to about seven categories. 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	EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · The author distinguishes bits of information from chunks of information; the number of bits is constant for absolute judgment. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. EVIDENCE CORRECTED: RE-GROUNDED. The published string was in NEITHER copy of the paper. Ours began 'between bits…'; the paper says 'I HAVE FALLEN…'. The span also ran into the page break 'informa- [p. 93] tion', so it now stops at the clause before it.	`content_tags.findings[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	the span of absolute judgment is about seven categories for unidimensional stimuli 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	adding dimensions with crude judgments on each raises that span to at least 150 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	the span of immediate memory is almost independent of the number of bits per chunk 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	recoding into larger chunks raises how much information the span can carry without raising the count 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	the author declines to unify the recurring sevens and calls the coincidence Pythagorean 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	amount of information in the stimuli Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: amount of information in the stimuli	`content_tags.variables[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	amount of transmitted information Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: amount of transmitted information	`content_tags.variables[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	chunk Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: chunk	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	recoding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: recoding	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	bit Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: bit	`content_tags.definitions[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	channel capacity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: channel capacity	`content_tags.definitions[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	span of absolute judgment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: span of absolute judgment	`content_tags.definitions[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	recoding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: recoding	`content_tags.definitions[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	amount of information Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: amount of information	`content_tags.definitions[7]`		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. also in: mean	`content_tags.statistics[0]`		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. also in: standard-deviation	`content_tags.statistics[1]`		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. also in: statistical-significance	`content_tags.statistics[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	variance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: variance	`content_tags.statistics[3]`		the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

none — every tag was located 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.