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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| 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 |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| 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 4 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | Figurative language in a corpus of late-antique Hebrew liturgical poetry, investigated from both a manual and a computational point of view. 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 | |
| research_question | How much room is there for sample-based research in a computationally-based annotation process, and can a particular concept of categorization support it? Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | Proposes a playful approach to the epistemological status of categories, in which they are returned to and re-examined critically rather than fixed at the start of annotation. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | method 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 | a hermeneutical circle in which visualizing the annotations sends the analyst back to re-assess the categories that produced them 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 | practice-report Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: practice-report | 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] | 0.9 | 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] | 0.9 | 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[2] | 0.9 | 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[3] | 0.9 | 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[4] | 0.9 | 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[5] | 0.9 | 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[6] | 0.9 | 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[7] | 0.9 | 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[8] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Annotation is stated to be hermeneutical and unstable across annotators and across time, including within the same annotator. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the annotations as a fixed measurement: the paper states the same annotator may annotate differently at a later date | limitations[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The original annotation phase had no well-defined tagset and the category definitions were flexible. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the dissertation-era annotations as a defined category system: the paper says no well-defined tagset existed | limitations[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The examples analysed in the original work were not selected for representativity. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: treating the analysed examples as a sample of the corpus: they were chosen for interest, not representativity | limitations[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Moving from many annotated texts to a statement about the corpus is said to involve an almost inevitable reduction. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: corpus-level generalisations from this workflow: the paper states some | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The paper states that adopting the computational option carries a price rather than delivering objectivity. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: reading the digital re-annotation as more objective than the manual one: the paper denies this | limitations[4] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The paper argues that excessive textual anchoring of speculation and hypothesis carries a cost. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: textual anchoring as a cost-free virtue: this paper argues excessive anchoring has a price | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The exploratory visualization phase is declared unpredictable in duration and in whether it yields anything. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: planning or costing the exploratory phase: the paper says its length and fruitfulness cannot be predicted | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The tool interoperates with one annotation system only. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: use of the tool outside CATMA: at the time of writing | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | A quantitative and a qualitative reading of the same genre disagree, and the paper holds both to be valid rather than resolving them. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the figurative-density figure as the genre's figurative character: the paper holds the qualitative reading equally valid | limitations[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The price of a category system is named as an effect on the annotator, not on the data: students become addicted to it and are described as ending in a different intellectual position from the one they started in. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: systematic annotation as a neutral instrument: the paper states the practice changes the annotator's disposition, describing students as moving from one critical position to another through annotating | limitations[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The stated end state of the process is that the interpretation itself becomes rigid. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: annotation followed by query and visualization as making interpretation legible: the paper states the same sequence ends with metadata becoming data and the interpretation becoming rigid | limitations[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | A claim in the author's own earlier dissertation is identified as incorrect by the quantitative measure, and the paper says so in print, naming the source: the genre was described as low on figurative language and measures at more than twice the corpus density. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the qualitative characterisation of a genre's figurative language: the paper reports its own earlier published assertion about the Hosha'not as incorrect once the density was counted | limitations[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The reason the human reading was wrong is named, and it is not carelessness: the words are figurative but the poem does not sound figurative, so impression and count come apart. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: figurative density as a proxy for how figurative a text reads: the paper states the same poem can be high in figurative words and low in figurative effect, and explains why | limitations[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| controls | comparing a genre's figurative density against the overall figurative density of the whole corpus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that a genre's apparently high figurative density is the corpus-wide rate rather than a property of that genre · outcome: held | controls[0] | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | annotation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: annotation | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | tagset Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: tagset | concepts[3] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | modeling Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: modeling | concepts[5] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | in-line annotation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: in-line annotation | concepts[6] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | inter-annotator agreement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: inter-annotator agreement | concepts[7] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | visualization of multiplicity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: visualization of multiplicity | concepts[8] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | close reading Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: close reading | concepts[9] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | distant reading Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: distant reading | concepts[10] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | text classification Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: text classification | concepts[11] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | CATMA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: CATMA | concepts[12] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | ViS-À-ViS Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ViS-À-ViS | concepts[13] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | category system Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: category system | concepts[14] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | systematic annotation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: systematic annotation | concepts[15] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | figurative density Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: figurative density | concepts[16] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | Hosha’not Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Hosha’not | concepts[17] | the paper's words | |
| senses | categorization - built upward from the data, by collecting instances until a category that contains them is defined 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 | categorization - built downward by formalization, by removing actual data until an abstract category remains 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 | reading - distant reading, which the paper says is better understood as a metaphor, since meaning is extracted without reading the text 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 | annotation - a close reading practice, based on sensitive attention to every detail in the text 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 | annotation - a modelling operation that prepares the object for future, as-yet-unknown questions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| senses | inter-annotator variation - the driving force of interpretation, to be visualized rather than collapsed into a standard Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | the price of a category system - not inaccuracy but ATTRACTION: solidity, precision and caution are named as what makes it seductive, and the seduction is the cost Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | figurative density - a counted ratio of figurative to non-figurative words, which for one genre is 25% against a corpus figure of 11% Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | figurative density - the aesthetic impression of figurativeness, which the paper states can be LOW in the same poem whose counted density is high Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | distinguishes-from → Franco Moretti, distant reading Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: WHETHER EACH TEXT IS INTERPRETED ON THE WAY. The method reaches the same place - a claim about a whole corpus - and the paper refuses the label anyway: 'this is NOT another version of Franco Moretti's distant reading, because, Quotation withheld.' The distinction is in the procedure, not in the output, which is why it is invisible in the result | claim_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Rieder and Röhle (2012) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: WHETHER GOING COMPUTATIONAL BUYS OBJECTIVITY. The move is described as widely PERCEIVED as 'a move in the direction of objectivity, scientification, and the like', and then: 'However, as we shall see, and as other scholars have already argued, the picture is more complex, since, even in such a case, this move has a price'. The borrowed claim is that a method change costs something rather than only adding rigour | claim_relations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | qualifies → Piper Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: WHICH COMPUTATIONAL PRACTICE THE ARGUMENT IS PAIRED WITH. The agreement is stated first - 'Our approach here is NOT VERY DIFFERENT FROM PIPER'S' - and the difference is the instrument: projects relying on 'the systematic annotation of texts, rather than on machine learning algorithms, which - despite being based on pre-existing annotated texts - emphasize the distance from the text itself'. Same argument, different tooling, and the reason given is proximity to the text | claim_relations[2] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → Marienberg-Milikowsky et al. (2022) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: WHAT TO DO WITH DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN ANNOTATORS. The prior work argued variation is the driving force of interpretation; this paper turns that into a tool behaviour: 'Instead of collapsing the variation into a gold or a silver standard, ViS-À-ViS advocates for the visualization of multiplicity ... instead of providing an answer concerning the "correct" annotation, it RAISES A QUESTION about it'. Inter-annotator disagreement stops being noise to be resolved and becomes the displayed result | claim_relations[3] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | annotation —is-a→ modeling 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: annotation · modeling | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | inter-annotator agreement —contrasted-with→ visualization of multiplicity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 | concept_edges[2] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | ViS-À-ViS —distinct-from→ CATMA 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 full span and kept, but endpoint by anaphora: 'This reality' = CATMA's basic visualisation capabilities (previous sentence). | concept_edges[3] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | close reading —contrasted-with→ distant reading Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS WHETHER THE TEXT IS ACTUALLY READ. 'unlike close reading, where the scholar actually reads the text closely, distant reading - regardless of its specific history - is BETTER UNDERSTOOD AS A METAPHOR.' The contrast is not two techniques on a scale of distance; one names an activity and the other is said to name none. · strength of the relation: 1 also in: close reading · distant reading | concept_edges[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Visualising the annotations repeatedly forced the categories to be revised. 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. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Categorisation and visualisation form a hermeneutic circle: each changes the other. 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 | The first annotation pass had a working notion of categories but no defined tagset — the tagset came later. 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. | content_tags.findings[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The initial scheme was flat: four devices with no hierarchy between them. 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 | 25% — figurative density of the Hosha'not genre: one word in four 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 | 11% — figurative density of the whole corpus, the comparison the 25% stands out against 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 |
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.