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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 |
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.
| 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 | undergraduates' perceptions of generative AI in personalized learning 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 | |
| limitations | Small sample and purely qualitative data limit generalizability and may carry subjective bias. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the generalisability of every finding: THE LIMITED SAMPLE SIZE ... AND THE EXCLUSIVE RELIANCE ON QUALITATIVE DATA | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | No long-term or longitudinal evidence about sustained effects of AI use on learning, cognition or motivation. 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 sustained effects: THE STUDY DOES NOT ADDRESS THE LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF AI USAGE IN EDUCATION | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Three limits are stated together: a small sample, exclusive reliance on qualitative data with subjective bias, and no long-term effects. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: these findings as evidence about AI in personalised learning generally: the authors name a limited sample, exclusive reliance on qualitative data which may introduce subjective biases, and no treatment of long-term effects | limitations[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The central construct is measured through instruments derived from a taxonomy, so the result inherits that taxonomy's division of cognition. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: a claim about cognitive skills in this study: they are measured with tools developed under guidance from Bloom's Taxonomy, which fixes which abilities count | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The paper describes its own data collection two incompatible ways. Methods: interviews of about 30 minutes, audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data availability: a survey of 10 questions answered as real-time feedback posted directly on a forum. These are different instruments producing different data, and the abstract uses both words in one sentence ('surveyed 48 undergraduates ... through semi-structured interviews'). Nothing in the paper reconciles them. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[4] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The 90% agreement is computed after the two coders built the themes together: the preliminary codes were 'collaboratively discussed and categorized into potential themes by both the first and second authors', and only then did each researcher independently apply them. The figure measures consistency of application, not independent arrival at the same scheme. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[5] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The sample is selected on the exposure under study - students who chose to enrol in an 'AI in Academic Writing' course - and the paper offers that selection as what makes the data informative rather than as a threat to it. Perceptions of AI are then reported from a group defined by having opted into using AI. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The paper recommends that future work 'employ quantitative methods alongside qualitative approaches to validate observed trends', while its own results are reported almost entirely as counts out of 48 - 35, 29, 25, 24, 22, 21, 18, 15, 10, 9 students and so on. The trends it asks future work to validate quantitatively are already stated as numbers here. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | limitations[7] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| controls | A PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARD ON INSTRUMENT DESIGN: each interview question grounded in both a theoretical definition and actual student responses Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: construct drift between what the instrument asks and what it claims to measure - a question written only from theory can miss how students actually talk, and one written only from their words can measure something the construct does not name · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | cognitive skills Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cognitive skills | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | personalized learning Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: personalized learning | concepts[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | generative AI Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: generative AI | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | semi-structured interview Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: semi-structured interview | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | convenience sampling Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: convenience sampling | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | thematic analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: thematic analysis | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | motivation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: motivation | concepts[6] | 0.9 | the paper's words |
| senses | cognitive skills - operationalised through Bloom's Taxonomy: memory, attention, comprehension and reasoning, as measured by tools built under that taxonomy's guidance 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 | AI assistance - AS EXPERIENCED BY A PARTICIPANT: a failure mode in which attempting to correct the system can INCREASE its misunderstanding rather than reduce 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 | the data - AS METHODS DESCRIBES IT: interviews of about 30 minutes, audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim by transcription software, then reviewed and edited 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 | the data - AS DATA AVAILABILITY DESCRIBES IT: a survey of 10 questions on a platform, answered as real-time feedback posted directly on a forum. NOT THE SAME INSTRUMENT as the transcribed 30-minute interviews of the methods section 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 | replicates → Mao, Chen, and Liu (2024) 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 → Seo et al. (2021) 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 | replicates → Ghimire et al. (2024) 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 | builds-on → Vasconcelos et al. (2023); Passi and Vorvoreanu (2022) 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 | |
| concept_edges | cognitive skills —operationalised-as→ semi-structured interview 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 SAME SHAPE ON THE OTHER CONSTRUCT: '…generative AI can enhance your higher-order…' thinking and, if so, how AI achieves it. Both of the paper's two constructs are elicited by a question whose second clause presupposes the effect. The construct is not measured; AGREEMENT WITH A PROPOSITION ABOUT THE CONSTRUCT IS. (This span is column-interleaved in the staged PDF text with a neighbouring column so the quote is exact but the paper's line order is not recoverable from it.)
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span is an interview question about cognitive skills; operationalised-as is loose. also in: cognitive skills · semi-structured interview | concept_edges[1] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | inter-rater agreement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: inter-rater agreement | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Thirty-five students said generative AI helped with homework and exam preparation by offering problem-solving strategies, refining articles and creating course content. 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 | Forty-two students said AI supplied learning resources and suggestions tailored to their learning behaviour and past performance. 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 | Thirty-three students credited generative AI with fostering their creativity by supplying diverse perspectives and innovative solutions. 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 | Twenty-two students worried that excessive reliance on AI could weaken their ability to think independently. 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 | Twenty-one students said AI-generated content was sometimes erroneous or inaccurate, so they had to verify and filter it themselves. 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 | Twenty-five students were worried about data security and privacy because of the volume of personal data AI systems process. 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 | Fifteen students said the AI tools failed to fully understand their queries and returned answers below their expectations. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | personalized learning environment (PLE) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | personalized learning environment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: personalized learning environment | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | engagement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: engagement | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | motivation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: motivation | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | cognitive skills Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cognitive skills | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | motivation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: motivation | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | learning engagement Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: learning engagement | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 48 — number of undergraduate interviewees in the study 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 | 23 males and 25 females, aged between 18 and 21 — sex and age composition of the student cohort 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 | over 90% — agreement between the two coders on themes, codes and quotations 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 | four hours weekly — minimum required AI-platform use per student per week 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 | 35 — students reporting AI helped with homework and exam preparation 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 | 42 — students reporting AI-customized resources boosted their enthusiasm 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 | |
| content_tags | 22 — students fearing over-reliance would reduce independent thinking Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[6] | 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.