Complexity and Fragility in Ecological Networks

Ricard V. Solé, José M. Montoya · Proceedings of the Royal Society B / arXiv · 2001 · ecology · 10.1098/rspb.2001.1767 · record sole2001-ecological-networks
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (pdftext); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. Claim type is 'mechanism': the headline result ('robust against random removal but very fragile when selective attacks are used') is attributed throughout to the scale-free degree distribution, i.e. fragility happens because of topology; a reading as plain 'existence' is defensible and the abstract sentence stating the result verbatim is 'Quotation withheld.' The Montoya and Solé quote retains the PDF's mangled accent ('Sol´e') because the rule is character-for-character copying. The paper mentions unpublished corroboration ('Preliminary analysis of model ecosystems suggest that our results are robust (Sol´e and Montoya, unpublished)'), which is not a published replication, so replication status stays 'untested'. Figure-caption and table text in this extraction is heavily garbled by column interleaving, so no quotes were taken from it. 2026-08-12 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.

Some words in these quotes contain the wrong character. The PDF this text was extracted from substituted 10 characters inside a word — a currency sign or a stray accent where a letter pair belongs, as in signi¢cantly for significantly, or a single ligature glyph, as in conﬁdence. They are valid characters in the wrong place, so they survive every encoding check. The quotes keep them for the same reason as above, and a search of this page will not find the affected words.

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
species 3 fields · robustness 3 fields · graph 2 fields · simulation 2 fields · homeostasis 2 fields · keystone species 2 fields · and 2 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 14 concept tags on this paper, 12 are grounded in a quoted sentence. 10 carry the tagger's gloss of what the term means in this paper, which is not something the article can license.

food web ecological network robustness keystone species species node link scale-free small world random networks secondary extinctions homeostasis topology percolation food webs are robust to random species loss but fragile to targeted removal of highly-connected (keystone) species - the error-tolerance / attack-vulnerability of heterogeneous networks a power-law degree distribution makes random removal almost always hit a sparsely connected species, so little follows from it removing the most connected species instead fragments the web into disconnected clusters at a percolation threshold the scale-free shape itself survives random loss but is destroyed by directed loss, so the web loses the property that protected it network robust fragile extinction nodes connections trophic power law graph power law distribution size of the largest species cluster p-value power-law poisson-distribution mean simulation

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
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
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/10.1098/rspb.2001.1767. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

alternatives 2 · claim_relations 9 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 4 · concepts 12 · content_tags 21 · contribution 1 · controls 2 · limitations 7 · mechanisms 4 · method 1 · object_of_study 1 · phenomenon 1 · research_question 1 · senses 3 · transfers 2

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	Three of the best-described food webs in the ecological literature - Ythan estuary, Silwood Park and Little Rock Lake - treated as graphs and subjected to simulated species loss. 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 of an ecosystem's fragility follows from the shape of its food web rather than from the ecology of the species in 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	Shows that food webs inherit the robust-yet-fragile signature of scale-free networks, and turns 'keystone species' from a qualitative label into a topological one that can be computed from the web. 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	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	food web robustness and fragility under species removal 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	simulation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: simulation	`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: food webs are robust to random species loss but fragile to targeted removal of highly-connected (keystone) species - the error-tolerance / attack-vulnerability of heterogeneous networks	`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. also in: a power-law degree distribution makes random removal almost always hit a sparsely connected species, so little follows from it	`mechanisms[1]`	1.0	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. also in: removing the most connected species instead fragments the web into disconnected clusters at a percolation threshold	`mechanisms[2]`	1.0	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. also in: the scale-free shape itself survives random loss but is destroyed by directed loss, so the web loses the property that protected it	`mechanisms[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	The approach lacks population dynamics and is constrained by the taxonomic resolution of the webs. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: every fragility estimate in the paper: THIS APPROXIMATION TO COMMUNITY FRAGILITY HAS OBVIOUS CAVEATS DERIVED FROM A LACK OF DYNAMICS AND TAXONOMIC LIMITATIONS	`limitations[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The analysis treats food webs as undirected, unweighted graphs. 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 who eats whom or how much: the analysis treats food webs as undirected, unweighted graphs - direction and magnitude are discarded before it begins	`limitations[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Only three food webs could be analysed, because of the scarcity of adequately resolved data. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the generality of the food-web results: OUR STUDY IS LIMITED TO THE THREE RICHEST AND BEST-DESCR[ibed webs], BECAUSE OF THE LIMITATIONS OF THE AVAILABLE DATA IN TERMS OF BOTH TAXONOMIC RESOLUTION AND SIZE	`limitations[2]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The analysis has no population dynamics in it at all - only the graph. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: every fragility result: the analysis has no population dynamics in it, only the graph	`limitations[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	Interactions are treated as undirected and unweighted, so who eats whom and how strongly are both discarded. 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 interaction direction or strength: OUR FINDINGS ARE BASED ON A NON-DIRECTED, AND NON-WEIGHTED GRAPH	`limitations[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	Three food webs, chosen because they are the only ones well enough described - the sample is the whole available population, not a random draw from it. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the generality of the conclusion: Quotation withheld - three because three is all there was	`limitations[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	One of the three webs resolves only 31% of its nodes to species, so its degree distribution is partly an artefact of taxonomy. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the degree distribution of that web: ONLY 31% OF NODES ARE REAL SPECIES, BEING MOST OF THE NODES GENERA-LEVEL (63%) AND THE REST CORRESPONDING TO HIGHER TAXA - connectivity depends partly on how finely each group was resolved	`limitations[6]`	0.9	the tagger's words
transfers	the robustness/fragility (error- vs attack-tolerance) framework from complex networks applied to ecological food webs 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	the error-and-attack-tolerance analysis of scale-free graphs, applied to species loss in ecological communities Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
controls	the ecological graphs subjected to RANDOM node removal as well as to selective removal aimed at the most connected species Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the fragility being a property of removing nodes at all rather than of removing the RIGHT nodes - random removal is the same operation without the targeting · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.85	the tagger's words
controls	the behaviour compared against purely random networks, where the degree distribution is Poissonian Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a robustness property that any network would show - the random graph is the object the claim must beat, and it has to be constructed rather than observed · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[1]`	0.85	the tagger's words
concepts	food web Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: food web	`concepts[0]`		the paper's words
concepts	keystone species Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: keystone species	`concepts[3]`		the paper's words
concepts	species Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: species	`concepts[4]`	1.0	the paper's words
concepts	node Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: node	`concepts[5]`	1.0	the paper's words
concepts	link Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: link	`concepts[6]`	1.0	the paper's words
concepts	scale-free Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: scale-free	`concepts[7]`	1.0	the paper's words
concepts	small world Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: small world	`concepts[8]`	1.0	the paper's words
concepts	random networks Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: random networks	`concepts[9]`	0.85	the paper's words
concepts	secondary extinctions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: secondary extinctions	`concepts[10]`	1.0	the paper's words
concepts	homeostasis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: homeostasis	`concepts[11]`	1.0	the paper's words
concepts	topology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: topology	`concepts[12]`	1.0	the paper's words
concepts	percolation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: percolation	`concepts[13]`	1.0	the paper's words
senses	network - a food web, whose nodes are species and whose links are trophic relations 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	network - biological and technological networks generally, sharing one graph of interaction and one response to node removal 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	fragility - in ecology, how a community responds to losing species, which the paper reads as the graph's response to losing nodes 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
alternatives	claim_type: mechanism 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: mechanism — 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: robustness of food webs to random species loss and fragility to loss of the most connected species Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: food web robustness and fragility under species removal — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides.	`alternatives.phenomenon`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → scale-free network theory 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 → network error-and-attack tolerance results 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	builds-on → Montoya and Solé (2000), small-world and scale-free patterns in food webs 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	extends → Albert et al. (2000) and Jeong et al. (2000), error and attack tolerance of complex networks 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	builds-on → Bond (1993) and Davic (2000) on keystone species beyond top predators 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	builds-on → Albert, Jeong and Barabasi (2000), error and attack tolerance of complex networks Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → Jeong et al. 2000, the metabolic-network analysis in this same corpus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[6]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED (RETRACTED AND RE-ADDED WITH THE FINDING CORRECTED) · extends → Montoya and Sole (2000), which showed food webs are scale-free Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED: RETRACTED AND RE-ADDED WITH THE FINDING CORRECTED. The target said the cited paper 'SHOWED FOOD WEBS ARE SCALE-FREE'. The span says '…DISPLAY SMALL-WORLD PROPERTIES (Montoya and Sole, 2000)…' SMALL-WORLD IS NOT SCALE-FREE - they are distinct properties and the difference is exactly what this literature argues about. The quote was exact, the anchor resolved and the endpoints were attested throughout: 'target' is the one field of the pair that nothing checks, and it is the fold key.	`claim_relations[7]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	extends → Montoya and Sole (2000), which showed these networks display small-world properties Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[8]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	keystone species —operationalised-as→ topology 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 says topology rather than trophic position determines which species are keystone; operationalised-as is loose. also in: keystone species · topology	`concept_edges[0]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	food web —is-a→ scale-free 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 the span writes 'scalefree distributions of connections'; endpoint variant, is-a loose. also in: food web · scale-free	`concept_edges[2]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	food web —is-a→ small world 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: 'these networks' = the three food webs (previous sentences); is-a is loose. also in: food web · small world	`concept_edges[3]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · keystone species —causes→ secondary extinctions 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 named neither endpoint. This sentence names both and states the causal link the edge asserts - removal of keystone species producing secondary extinctions. — strength of the relation: 1 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span reports extinction rates up to 95 times higher when keystone species are removed; 'secondary extinctions' is a variant. also in: keystone species · secondary extinctions	`concept_edges[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	three — number of species-rich ecosystem food webs analysed 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	P(k) ≈ k^-γ — scale-free power-law degree distribution of the food webs Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE REPAIRED: the extractor split a hyphen-space and the quote was recorded faithfully with the damage in it, which made it unanchorable. The repaired string is an EXACT SUBSTRING of the staged text - that is why it was accepted, not because a rule produced it. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted.	`content_tags.quantities[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Ns = 134 species — size of the Ythan estuary food web Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	<k> = 4.75 — average links per species in the Silwood Park web Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	<k> = 26.05 — average links per species in the Little Rock Lake web Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	95 times higher — ratio of extinction rate under directed removal to random removal Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	88% real species — taxonomic resolution of the Ythan estuary web Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[6]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	Ecological networks are extremely robust against random removal but very fragile under selective attacks. 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	This robust-yet-fragile structure bears on biodiversity dynamics, extinction-rate estimates, and the definition of keystone species. 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 food webs show high homeostasis under random species removal, with a slow, linear decrease in the fraction of species in the largest cluster. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	Directed removal of the most connected species is catastrophic - extinction rates run up to 95 times higher than under random removal. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	The scale-free distribution itself is stable under random loss of more than half the species, and collapses after only a few directed removals. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	The topology of the food web, rather than the trophic position of species, determines which species are keystone. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[5]`	0.9	the tagger's words
content_tags	size of the largest species cluster Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: size of the largest species cluster	`content_tags.variables[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	secondary extinctions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: secondary extinctions	`content_tags.definitions[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	keystone species Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: keystone species	`content_tags.definitions[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	power law distribution Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: power law distribution	`content_tags.definitions[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	p-value Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: p-value	`content_tags.statistics[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	power-law Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: power-law	`content_tags.statistics[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	poisson-distribution Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: poisson-distribution	`content_tags.statistics[2]`	1.0	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[3]`	1.0	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.