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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
| unrecordable relation | unhoused_relations | a relation the paper asserts that this vocabulary cannot express, with the reason |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | intention to use intelligent learning tools and independent learning ability 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 | observational-study Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: observational-study | 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 | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms 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 | mechanisms 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 | |
| limitations | All respondents came from a single school, limiting representativeness. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the population every result speaks for: THE SAMPLES WERE ONLY FROM ONE SCHOOL, SO THE SCOPE WAS LIMITED AND MAY NOT BE REPRESENTATIVE | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The interaction-quality construct was not broken down by type of interaction, which may mask differing effects. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the interaction-quality finding: IT DID NOT SPECIFY THE TYPE OF INTERACTION BEING MEASURED, which may mask differing effects | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | A verdict of no bias is produced by a conventional cut, and the observed value sits under it by less than four percentage points. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the claim that common method bias is not a problem here: it rests on the largest factor accounting for 46.127% of variance against a 50% threshold | limitations[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Model fit is judged against cut-offs taken from another paper rather than derived for this design. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the statement that this model fits: the fit indices are compared with | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The central construct is defined by citation, in terms of what the user happens to need. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: information quality as a property of the system: it is defined as the system providing exactly what the user needs, which makes it relative to the user | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | The information-quality construct and its role as a determinant of satisfaction and use are taken from the DeLone and McLean model of information systems success and applied to primary-school learning tools 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 | |
| controls | A PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARD, NOT AN EXPERIMENTAL ARM: collinearity among the predictor constructs checked by variance inflation factor before the structural model is evaluated, against a threshold of VIF < 5 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: collinearity as a distorter of the path coefficients - correlated predictors make individual paths unstable in sign and size, so a reported structural effect could be an artefact of the predictors overlapping rather than of the model · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | common method bias Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: common method bias | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | information quality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: information quality | concepts[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | Harman’s single-factor test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Harman’s single-factor test | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | interaction quality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: interaction quality | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | intention to use Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: intention to use | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | satisfaction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: satisfaction | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | independent learning ability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: independent learning ability | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| unhoused_relations | interaction quality → intention to use Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. A PATH THE PAPER TESTED AND DID NOT FIND: 'interaction quality did not have a significant impact on intention to use', coefficient 0.097 marked NS in the structural table. NO EDGE TYPE CAN ASSERT THAT A RELATION IS ABSENT, and this is one of the study's three headline results. Second instance in two consecutive papers - arthur2022's full mediation is the same shape from the other side. | unhoused_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | common method bias - operationalised as whether one factor exceeds half the variance, so 'no bias' here means 'below a conventional cut', not 'absent' 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 | information quality - defined by reference to the USER's need rather than by a property of the information, so two users of the same system can differ on it 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 | impact - the paper uses it for two different things in one sentence: a DIRECT path that must clear significance, and an INDIRECT influence through a mediator that need not. Interaction quality has the second and not the first Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | replicates → Radha et al. (2020); Prasetyanto et al. (2022) 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 → Dai et al. (2020); Alzahrani et al. (2022) 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 | |
| concept_edges | interaction quality —causes→ satisfaction 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 · note: The strongest exogenous path in the model, 0.519***, and it is the one that carries interaction quality's whole effect - see the unhoused row for the direct path it does NOT have.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'ITQ -> ST 0.519***'; endpoints abbreviated, a path coefficient. also in: interaction quality · satisfaction | concept_edges[0] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | satisfaction —causes→ intention to use 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 full span and kept, but the span writes 'ST -> IU 0.617***'; endpoints abbreviated, a path coefficient. also in: satisfaction · intention to use | concept_edges[1] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | intention to use —causes→ independent learning ability 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 · note: 0.727***, the largest coefficient in the model and the paper's headline claim. also in: intention to use · independent learning ability | concept_edges[2] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | information quality —causes→ intention to use Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: WHETHER A DIRECT PATH SURVIVES AT ALL: information quality keeps one (0.165***) while interaction quality does not (0.097, non-significant), even though interaction quality has the stronger route into satisfaction (0.519 against 0.282). Reaching the outcome and reaching it DIRECTLY are different questions and this model separates them · strength of the relation: 0.7
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'IFQ -> IU 0.165***'; endpoints abbreviated, a path coefficient. also in: information quality · intention to use | concept_edges[3] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Cronbach's alpha Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Cronbach's alpha | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | average variance extracted Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: average variance extracted | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Harman's single-factor test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Harman's single-factor test | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | bootstrap Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: bootstrap | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | variance inflation factor Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: variance inflation factor | content_tags.statistics[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | cross-validation (blindfolding predictive relevance) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | coefficient of determination Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: coefficient of determination | content_tags.statistics[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Likert scale Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Likert scale | content_tags.statistics[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | mediation analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mediation analysis | content_tags.statistics[10] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Intention to use intelligent learning tools directly predicted independent learning ability, information quality and satisfaction predicted intention to use, but interaction quality did not directly predict intention to use and instead worked through satisfaction. 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 | Intention to use was a strong positive predictor of independent learning ability, accounting for over half its variance. 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 | Interaction quality had no significant direct influence on intention to use. 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 | Satisfaction with the tools fully mediated the effect of interaction quality on intention to use. 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 | Satisfaction partially mediated the effect of information quality on intention to use. 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 | Students rated the tools' information quality (M = 4.02) higher than their interaction quality (M = 3.88). 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 | intelligent learning tools Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: intelligent learning tools | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | information quality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: information quality | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | satisfaction with tools Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: satisfaction with tools | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | intention to use Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: intention to use | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | interaction quality and information quality of intelligent learning tools Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | independent learning ability Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: independent learning ability | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | satisfaction with tools Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: satisfaction with tools | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 384 — valid questionnaires collected from Grade 6 students in Hangzhou, China 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 | β = 0.727 — path coefficient from intention to use to independent learning ability 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 | 46.127% — variance captured by the largest single factor in Harman's test, below the 50% common-method-bias threshold 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 | 0.174 — indirect effect of information quality on intention to use via satisfaction 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 | M = 3.82 — mean score for students' self-reported independent learning abilities 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 | 0.672 and 0.804 — range of HTMT values, all below 1, supporting discriminant validity 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 |
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.