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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
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 3 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
This record holds no controls or mechanisms. A layer is empty when the tagger recorded nothing in it — which is not the same as the paper having nothing to record.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim_type | 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 | implicit 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 | |
| limitations | The review cannot settle whether implicit and explicit memory rest on one system or several 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 | None of the three main theoretical positions surveyed accounts for all the evidence 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 | There are no firm criteria for deciding between multiple-system and single-system explanations 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 | |
| transfers | the concept of unconscious cerebration, and the interest in implicit memory that followed from it, is traced to a general nineteenth-century attempt to relate physiology and psychology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | implicit memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: implicit memory | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | explicit memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: explicit memory | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | conscious recollection Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: conscious recollection | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | repetition priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repetition priming | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | THE PAIR IS DEFINED IN ONE SENTENCE BY ONE CRITERION APPLIED BOTH WAYS: `Quotation withheld.` Both are defined by what the TASK demands, not by what the memory IS. Same move Finkbeiner2011 makes for `subliminal` - the phenomenon is the outcome of a measurement - and it is why this distinction survived while the theories about it did not Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | AND THE RECORD DATES ITS OWN VOCABULARY: `Graf and Schacter (1985, 1987; Schacter & Graf, 1986a, 1986b) have labeled this type of memory implicit memory, and have used the term explicit memory to refer to conscious recollection.` A paper that says who named the thing, when, and in which papers - two years before this review, by one of its own authors. Most of this corpus inherits `implicit memory` as vocabulary; this record can tell a reader where it came from, which is what the term-coiner layer exists to do Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | AND IT NAMES THE NEGATIVE SPACE IN ITS OWN HISTORY, TWICE. `Quotation withheld.` And on the modern literature: `there is a sense in which the entire literature on transfer of training may be perceived as the study of implicit memory, researchers did not view it as such and did not elaborate any distinctions like the one between implicit and explicit.` A densely populated region of research that had no name until somebody drew the line - said by the person who drew it. That is the `missing terms / negative space` argument with a worked historical case attached Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | AND THE ACCOUNT IT REPORTS THE FIELD ABANDONING IS THE OBVIOUS ONE: `The most popular idea was that implicit memory phenomena were produced by memory traces that are TOO WEAK to exceed the threshold of strength or activation needed for EXPLICIT memory.` One dimension, one threshold, implicit memory as sub-threshold explicit memory. A corpus that holds only current accounts cannot show what was given up - and this one is worth holding because the strength account is what every dissociation in this corpus is evidence against, including Bruce1998's dose asymmetry and Kirsner1986's crossover Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Graf and Schacter (1985) 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 | contradicts → the trace-strength/threshold account of implicit memory (Herbart, 1896; Leibniz, 1916; Korsakoff, 1889; Prince, 1914) 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 | implicit memory —distinct-from→ explicit memory Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: THE DEFINITION IS THE EDGE. One sentence defines both by the same criterion - whether the task requires conscious recollection - applied in opposite directions, so the distinction is constitutive rather than empirical. Weight 0.95: this is the sentence the field took the pair from. Note what it does NOT claim: not that they are separate systems, only that they are separately revealed. The systems argument is elsewhere in the paper and is much weaker, which the fourth sense records. also in: implicit memory · explicit memory | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | implicit memory —distinct-from→ conscious recollection 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 NAMING SENTENCE, AND IT CARRIES THE CONTRAST THE TERM WAS COINED TO MARK. 'implicit memory' was introduced for the case where memory shows without conscious recollection, and 'explicit memory' for the case where it needs it. Weight 0.9 rather than 0.95: the quote reports Graf and Schacter's usage rather than asserting the distinction, and the citation is to four papers this corpus does not hold. also in: implicit memory · conscious recollection | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | repetition priming —part-of→ implicit memory 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: 'MOST OF' IS IN THE QUOTE AND IT IS THE REASON THIS EDGE MATTERS TO THIS PROJECT. Schacter places nearly the whole cognitive-psychology strand of implicit-memory research inside the repetition-priming paradigm - so a corpus about priming and a corpus about implicit memory are nearly the same corpus, and the two literatures cite each other under different names. Weight 0.9: 'most' is a hedge and the claim is a reviewer's characterisation, but it is the reviewer who named the field. also in: repetition priming · implicit memory | concept_edges[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | implicit memory facilitates performance without conscious recollection 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 | priming is the central measure of implicit memory 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 | statistical-significance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: statistical-significance | content_tags.statistics[0] | 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.