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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
| 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.
This record holds no 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 | 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 | category accessibility in person perception 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 | behavioural-experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: behavioural-experiment | method | the paper's words | |
| limitations | The encoding step assumed to mediate the effect was not directly measured. 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 | The apparent negative priming effect at 24 hours in Experiment 1 is not trustworthy without replication. 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 | The claim that the same encoding processes operated as in Higgins et al. rests on paradigm similarity, not on data collected here. 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 two trait concepts were studied, so the hostility/kindness asymmetry needs a broader sample. 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 | |
| controls | the filler items were held IDENTICAL across conditions, so that only the priming items differed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that something else in the sentence-construction task produced the effect · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | category accessibility Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: category accessibility | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: priming | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | encoding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: encoding | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | halo effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: halo effect | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| senses | THE AMBIGUITY CONDITION, FOR THE FOURTH TIME AND FROM A FOURTH DIRECTION: `Quotation withheld when the implications of this information are relatively ambiguous.` With higgins1977 (`at least in ambiguous situations`), north1999 (`only when there is an element of UNCERTAINTY`) and money2013 (`a situation that does not leave much room for interpretation`), that is four papers across 1977-2015 and three fields. And here it is not a qualifier in passing: it is one of four summarised findings, and the target behaviours were SELECTED for ambiguity by a separate rating study of 43 subjects before the experiment began 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 | FREQUENCY IS A DOSE, AND THE PAPER SAYS SO AS A GENERAL LAW RATHER THAN A RESULT: `Quotation withheld.` Not `in this experiment` - in the past. The claim is that ordinary life is continuously setting accessibility, and the laboratory manipulation is only a controlled instance of something always running. That is a much larger claim than the experiment tests, and it is the one the field inherited 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 | THE DECAY IS SLOW AND INCOMPLETE: `although these effects decrease with the time interval between their activation and the acquisition of information to be interpreted or encoded, they are sometimes detectable even after 24 hours.` A priming effect surviving a day, in a corpus whose other records measure the same word in MILLISECONDS - vorberg2003's time courses, Holcomb2005's 40 ms primes, Huang2018's 16 ms exposure. The same term spans six orders of magnitude of persistence, and `sometimes detectable` is the hedge that keeps this one honest 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 | A GRADIENT USED TO RULE OUT A RIVAL ACCOUNT: the priming generalised to traits related to the primed one only indirectly, but LESS strongly - `Quotation withheld produced by exposure to `good` or `bad` concepts on the priming task.` A halo would not respect the distance between traits. The rival is excluded by the SHAPE of the effect rather than by a control condition, which is a cheaper and less common move 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 |
| senses | AND THEY BORROW higgins1977'S MECHANISM EVIDENCE AND MARK THE BORROWING: `Quotation withheld ... Quotation withheld` They lean on Higgins' applicability null - primed traits that were evaluatively toned but INAPPLICABLE had no effect - for the mechanism their own design does not test, name it as a borrowing, and mark the inference tentative in the same paragraph. Both papers are in this corpus and the dependency is now recorded from the borrowing side Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → Higgins, Rholes, and Jones (1977) 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 spreading activation approach of Collins & Loftus (1975) as an account of social priming 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 | category accessibility —causes→ encoding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: increases · strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: THE 'WHEN ... AMBIGUOUS' CLAUSE IS INSIDE THE QUOTE AND IT IS HALF THE CLAIM. An edge reading 'accessibility drives encoding' without it states the 1977-79 result as the unconditional version the field later argued about - and this is the fourth paper in the corpus to name that same condition. Weight 0.9: the paper's own summary of its own finding, in its discussion.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says the effect of accessibility on encoding is more pronounced for ambiguous information; the direction is not stated. also in: category accessibility · encoding | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | category accessibility is a major determinant of how social information is encoded in memory and later used for judgments 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 | ANOVA 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. THE QUOTE CONTINUES A SENTENCE THAT THIS COPY CUTS IN TWO - a figure, its axis labels and its caption stand between it and the words it follows, which read 'tested statistically by the main effect'. also in: ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | hypothesis-testing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: hypothesis-testing | content_tags.statistics[1] | 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[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | standard-deviation 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: standard-deviation | content_tags.statistics[3] | 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[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | variance 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: variance | content_tags.statistics[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.