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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| 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 |
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.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose 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 | artificial intelligence in mathematics education Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: This quote ends with the stray word 'A', the first word of the next sentence. It is not trimmed, because the quote without it occurs more than once in the paper's text and could not be tied to one place. The claim is carried by the sentence before 'A'. | 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 | |
| limitations | Only a small number of eligible articles exist, so broad conclusions cannot be drawn Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | AI is rarely investigated in mathematics education, limiting the results obtained Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | De-duplication across search engines reduced the number of relevant studies acquired Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Only journal articles were included; proceedings and books were excluded Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The review's central term is stated to have no agreed definition, and the review adopts none. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any count reported in this review: the authors state there are diverse concepts of AI in the literature and describe defining AI as a problem, without settling on one definition for the review | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The population is defined by a list of search synonyms rather than by a concept. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the scope of what this review counts as AI: the search treated artificial intelligence, AI, robotics, machine learning, neural networks, fuzzy logic, natural language processing and expert systems as synonyms and alternative terms for one main search term | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The three article counts printed for the search stage are inconsistent with each other. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the PRISMA flow reported here: 864 results from the databases plus 20 from other sources are stated to give a total of 885, and the printed numbers do not sum | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The corpus is restricted by language and by a five-year window. 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 how much AI research exists in mathematics education: only English-language journal articles published between 2017 and 2021 were considered | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| controls | A PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARD ON A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW: every one of the 845 articles read through title, abstract, methodology, results and discussion against the stated selection criteria, rather than screened on title and abstract alone Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: articles that match the search terms but not the research question - a review screened on titles inherits whatever the titles happen to say, and the synthesis then describes the search rather than the literature · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | artificial intelligence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: artificial intelligence | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | machine intelligence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: machine intelligence | concepts[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | expert systems Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: expert systems | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | intelligent tutoring system Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: intelligent tutoring system | concepts[3] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | computer program Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: computer program | concepts[4] | the paper's words | |
| senses | AI - THREE CHARACTERISATIONS AND NO RULING: the review reports that there are diverse concepts of AI in the literature and that defining it is a problem, then quotes a confluence of technologies, computers that do cognitive functions, and a process that produces human intelligence through machines - three sources, one review, and no statement of which the review is using 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 | AI, OPERATIONALLY - A LIST OF EIGHT SEARCH STRINGS: what the review actually counts is papers matching artificial intelligence, AI, robotics, machine learning, neural networks, fuzzy logic, natural language processing or expert systems, so a table of search synonyms is doing the work that none of the three definitions does 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 | machine intelligence - THE ALTERNATIVE NAME, GIVEN IN PASSING: the review introduces the problem of defining AI as the problem of defining artificiality's parameters, and names the field 'machine intelligence' in the same clause, attributing it to Poole et al. 1998 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 |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Ouyang and Jiao (2021) conceptual framework of AI-directed / AI-supported / AI-empowered learning 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 → Moher et al. (2009) PRISMA flow diagram 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 → Zhong and Xia (2020) systematic review of robotics in mathematics learning 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 | |
| concept_edges | intelligent tutoring system —is-a→ computer program 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: intelligent tutoring system · computer program | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Robotics was the most common AI approach in the 20 reviewed mathematics-education studies, accounting for 45% (n=9) of them. 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 USA contributed the most reviewed studies (n=3). 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 | Quantitative designs were the most used methodology among the reviewed studies, at 40% (n=8). 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 | 2021 was the peak publication year for AI-in-mathematics-education articles in the review window, with 30% of the corpus. 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 | Effectiveness of AI was the most studied theme, in 60% (n=12) of the reviewed papers. 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 | 834 articles were rejected for not fully explaining AI in mathematics education or not clearly reporting findings. 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 | artificial intelligence (AI) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: artificial intelligence (AI) | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | systematic literature review (SLR) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: systematic literature review (SLR) | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | PRISMA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: PRISMA | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | intelligent tutoring system Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: intelligent tutoring system | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | research methodology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: research methodology | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 45%, n=9 — share of reviewed studies using a robotics approach to AI 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 | 40%, n=8 — share of reviewed studies using quantitative methods 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 | 60%, n=12 — share of reviewed studies whose theme was effectiveness of AI 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 | 30% — share of the reviewed corpus published in 2021, the peak year 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 | 864 — records retrieved by the database searches, plus 20 from other sources 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 | 834 — articles rejected at the eligibility stage 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 | 20 — articles retained for the final synthesis 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 |
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.