(cid:NN). The PDF this text was extracted from encodes 62 characters in a way that names no letter, so the extractor could not say what they were. The quotes keep them because a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing — the marks are the source’s, not the tagging’s.phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | auditory thalamocortical synaptic transmission— “Despite a large number of anatomical and physiological studies, very little is known about the cellular and synaptic mechanisms by which thalamic inputs are transmitted to, and processed in, ACx.” | |
| claim-type | method— “To facilitate an understanding of auditory thalamocortical mechanisms, we have developed a mouse brain-slice preparation with a functional connection between the ventral division of the medial geniculate (MGv) and the primary auditory cortex (ACx).” | |
| method — evidence | — “Recordings took place in an interface chamber (Haas model, Med Systems) maintained at 34°C, with a liberal flow of warmed humidified gas (95% O2-5% CO2) and ACSF passing over the slices.” | |
| mechanism | Thalamic glutamatergic axons excite cortical inhibitory interneurons, which then synapse on the recorded cell, producing the disynaptic fast IPSP— “Instead, it is likely that excitatory thalamic projections drove cortical inhibitory interneurons to fire and those interneurons synapsed on the recorded cells, producing the IPSPs (discussed in Castro-Alamancos and Connors 1997; Douglas and Martin 1991; Porter et al. 2001).” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Antidromic activation of layer 5 corticotectal cells whose axons cross the shell stimulation site, feeding back through their intracortical collaterals to generate the layer 1 sink— “Thus it is possible that antidromic activation of these cells could contribute to the synaptic CSD sinks observed in the shell slice, via contacts made by their axon collaterals.” | mechanisms[1] |
| builds-on | Agmon and Connors (1991) somatosensory thalamocortical slice preparation— “To address similar problems in the somatosensory system, Agmon and Connors (1991) developed a slice preparation that maintained connections from the ventrobasal complex to barrel cortex.” | claim_relations[0] |
| extends | Metherate and Cruikshank (1999), the authors' own initial feasibility study in rat and mouse slices— “In initial studies using slices from rat and mouse, we demonstrated the likely feasibility of such a preparation by showing that stimulation within the thalamus or thalamocortical pathway could elicit cortical responses (Metherate and Cruikshank 1999).” | claim_relations[1] |
| builds-on | Barth and MacDonald (1996) finding that nonlemniscal stimulation evokes cortical gamma band activity— “These observations are broadly consistent with the finding by Barth and colleagues that stimuli presumed to activate nonlemniscal pathways evoke cortical gamma band activity whereas lemniscal stimulation does not (Barth and MacDonald 1996).” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | an IPSP amplitude, across papers - NOT A COMPARABLE QUANTITY: whether an IPSP can be observed at all, and how large it is, depends heavily on methodology and criteria, so the same named measurement in two studies is two measurements and the authors state the comparison is difficult— “However, it is difficult to compare IPSPs across studies because the degree to which they can be observed, and their amplitudes, depends heavily on methodology and criteria” | senses[0] |
| sense | columnar (on-beam) stimulation - NOT A SELECTIVE THALAMOCORTICAL PROBE: it is used to activate thalamocortical inputs, and the authors state it may not be a reliable means of doing so selectively, because MG and on-beam stimuli do not activate the same sets of synapses— “Fourth, we observed that these MG-evoked profiles, and the intracellular responses in layer 4, differ from those produced by conventional columnar stimulation, indicating that columnar stimulation may not be a reliable means of selectively activating thalamocortical inputs” | senses[1] |
| sense | the AMPA/KA finding - HELD UP BY AN ASSUMPTION, NOT A CONTROL: the subtractive logic could not be used because APV was never applied alone, so the conclusion follows only if the fast EPSP is a monosynaptic event, which the authors state is difficult to prove— “However, if one assumes that the fast EPSP in the middle layers is a monosynaptic event, then the virtually complete suppression of the fast EPSP by CNQX (RESULTS; Fig. 5) does implicate AMPA/KA receptors in transmission at thalamocortical synapses. Although it is difficult to prove that a response is monosynaptic, the fast EPSPs and the fast… | senses[2] |
| sense | the early IPSPs - CORTICAL IN ROUTE, INFERRED FROM A BLOCKER RATHER THAN FROM THE RESPONSE: a direct inhibitory thalamic projection is ruled out because an AMPA/KA antagonist blocked them, and the remaining account is that excitatory thalamic projections drove cortical interneurons which then synapsed on the recorded cells; the paper states this as likely, not as shown— “if the IPSPs had been the result of direct inhibitory projections from the thalamus, then antagonism of AMPA/KA receptors could not have blocked them. Instead, it is likely that excitatory thalamic projections drove cortical inhibitory interneurons to fire and those interneurons synapsed on the recorded cells, producing the IPSPs” | senses[3] |
| control | on-beam and MG-evoked IPSPs compared DIRECTLY WITHIN THE SAME SLICES rather than across the preparation — held — rules out preparation-dependent differences - slice health, cutting angle, anything that varies between preparations and would otherwise be read as a difference between the two pathways— “To control for these potential preparation-dependent effects, we directly compared on-beamand MG-evoked IPSPs within the same slices.” | controls[0] |
| control | a re-analysis restricted to the SEVEN CELLS in which MG-evoked EPSPs were at least as strong as on-beam EPSPs — held — rules out weaker MG excitation as the explanation of weaker MG inhibition - if the thalamic pathway simply drove the slice less hard, smaller IPSPs would follow with no difference in inhibition itself— “To control for this potential problem, we separately compared IPSPs for the seven cells in which EPSPs evoked by MG stimulation were equal to, or stronger than, on-beam EPSPs” | controls[1] |
| differs in | MG stimuli —contrasted-with→ on-beam stimuli — which synapses they activate, and the laminar profile they evoke— “These findings indicated that MG and on-beam stimuli do not activate the same sets of synapses in cortex. This conclusion was further supported by the observation that MG and on-beam stimuli evoked different laminar profiles. While the MG stimuli produced expected profiles with dominant middle layer CSD sinks, on-beam stimuli evoked profiles…— “do not activate the same sets of synapses in cortex” | concept_edges[0] |
| effect direction | cortical inhibitory interneurons —causes→ IPSPs — increases— “if the IPSPs had been the result of direct inhibitory projections from the thalamus, then antagonism of AMPA/KA receptors could not have blocked them. Instead, it is likely that excitatory thalamic projections drove cortical inhibitory interneurons to fire and those interneurons synapsed on the recorded cells, producing the IPSPs”— “Instead, it is likely that excitatory thalamic projections drove cortical inhibitory interneurons to fire and those interneurons synapsed on the recorded cells, producing the IPSPs” | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | cortical inhibitory interneurons —causes→ IPSPs — 0.8— “if the IPSPs had been the result of direct inhibitory projections from the thalamus, then antagonism of AMPA/KA receptors could not have blocked them. Instead, it is likely that excitatory thalamic projections drove cortical inhibitory interneurons to fire and those interneurons synapsed on the recorded cells, producing the IPSPs” | concept_edges[1] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[1] |
| for which use | limitation — the layer 1 sink interpretation: IT DOES NOT PROVE THAT THIS HYPOTHETICAL MODE OF ACTIVATION ACTUALLY OCCURS OR THAT DIRECT INPUT FROM THE NONPRIMARY AUDITORY THALAMUS HAD NO ROLE— “However, it does not prove that this hypothetical mode of activation actually occurs or that direct input from the nonprimary auditory thalamus had no role.” | limitations[0] |
| for which use | limitation — any use of the shell preparation while the alternative is unresolved: THUS AT PRESENT IT SHOULD BE USED WITH CAUTION— “Thus at present it should be used with caution.” | limitations[1] |
| for which use | limitation — any AMPA/KA conclusion from the pharmacology: THIS SUBTRACTIVE LOGIC CANNOT BE USED TO IMPLICATE AMPA/KA RECEPTORS BECAUSE APV WAS NEVER APPLIED BY ITSELF— “This subtractive logic cannot be used to implicate AMPA/KA receptors because APV was never applied by itself.” | limitations[2] |
| for which use | limitation — the synaptic order of the early response: EXACTLY HOW MANY LINKS ARE INVOLVED IN THE EARLY RESPONSE REMAINS TO BE DETERMINED— “Exactly how many links are involved in the early response remains to be determined.” | limitations[3] |
| for which use | limitation — any comparison of IPSP amplitudes between this study and another: the authors state— “However, it is difficult to compare IPSPs across studies because the degree to which they can be observed, and their amplitudes, depends heavily on methodology and criteria” | limitations[4] |
| for which use | limitation — any result attributing a response to thalamocortical input on the basis of columnar stimulation: the authors state their MG-evoked profiles differ from those produced by conventional columnar stimulation, which may not be a reliable means of selectively activating thalamocortical inputs— “Fourth, we observed that these MG-evoked profiles, and the intracellular responses in layer 4, differ from those produced by conventional columnar stimulation, indicating that columnar stimulation may not be a reliable means of selectively activating thalamocortical inputs” | limitations[5] |
| for which use | limitation — any treatment of on-beam and MG stimulation as interchangeable probes: they are stated not to activate the same sets of synapses in cortex, and to evoke different laminar profiles— “These findings indicated that MG and on-beam stimuli do not activate the same sets of synapses in cortex. This conclusion was further supported by the observation that MG and on-beam stimuli evoked different laminar profiles. While the MG stimuli produced expected profiles with dominant middle layer CSD sinks, on-beam stimuli evoked profiles… | limitations[6] |
| for which use | limitation — the claim that AMPA/KA receptors mediate transmission at these synapses: it follows if one assumes the fast EPSP in the middle layers is a monosynaptic event, and the authors state it is difficult to prove that a response is monosynaptic— “However, if one assumes that the fast EPSP in the middle layers is a monosynaptic event, then the virtually complete suppression of the fast EPSP by CNQX (RESULTS; Fig. 5) does implicate AMPA/KA receptors in transmission at thalamocortical synapses. Although it is difficult to prove that a response is monosynaptic, the fast EPSPs and the fast… | limitations[7] |
| for which use | limitation — any inference from these evoked responses to sound-driven cortical activity: the authors state it remains to be determined whether the activation produced by MG stimulation represents a natural pattern similar to that produced by acoustic stimulation in vivo— “It remains to be determined whether or not the cortical activation (e.g., IPSP magnitude and laminar profile) produced by MG stimulation in the primary slice represents a “natural” pattern, similar to that produced by acoustic stimulation in vivo” | limitations[8] |
| for which use | limitation — any absolute inhibitory strength taken from these recordings: cortical inhibitory systems are known not to be fully developed in juvenile rodents, and the modest cortical PV labeling observed here is stated to indicate it— “For example, it is known that some aspects of cortical inhibitory systems are not fully developed in juvenile rodents (e.g., Dunning et al. 1999; Luhmann and Prince 1991; reviewed in Sutor and Luhmann 1995). In fact, this was indicated by the relatively modest cortical PV labeling observed here; PV is a marker for a class of cortical… | limitations[9] |
| evidential status | mechanism — the paper's own words: it is possible that— “Thus it is possible that antidromic activation of these cells could contribute to the synaptic CSD sinks observed in the shell slice, via contacts made by their axon collaterals.” | mechanisms[1] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | The alternative explanation for the shell slice layer 1 sink (antidromically activated layer 5 corticotectal cells) cannot be excluded— “However, it does not prove that this hypothetical mode of activation actually occurs or that direct input from the nonprimary auditory thalamus had no role.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | Because of that unresolved alternative, the authors advise caution in using the shell preparation— “Thus at present it should be used with caution.” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The pharmacological design cannot isolate the AMPA/KA contribution, since APV was never given alone— “This subtractive logic cannot be used to implicate AMPA/KA receptors because APV was never applied by itself.” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | The synaptic order of the early response is unresolved— “Exactly how many links are involved in the early response remains to be determined.” | limitations[3] |
| limitation | A measured quantity is stated not to be comparable across studies, because its visibility depends on method and criteria.— “However, it is difficult to compare IPSPs across studies because the degree to which they can be observed, and their amplitudes, depends heavily on methodology and criteria” | limitations[4] |
| limitation | The conventional stimulation method is stated to be possibly unreliable for the purpose it is used for.— “Fourth, we observed that these MG-evoked profiles, and the intracellular responses in layer 4, differ from those produced by conventional columnar stimulation, indicating that columnar stimulation may not be a reliable means of selectively activating thalamocortical inputs” | limitations[5] |
| limitation | Two stimulation sites are reported not to activate the same synapses, with different laminar profiles.— “These findings indicated that MG and on-beam stimuli do not activate the same sets of synapses in cortex. This conclusion was further supported by the observation that MG and on-beam stimuli evoked different laminar profiles. While the MG stimuli produced expected profiles with dominant middle layer CSD sinks, on-beam stimuli evoked profiles… | limitations[6] |
| limitation | The AMPA/KA conclusion is conditional on an assumption the authors state is difficult to prove.— “However, if one assumes that the fast EPSP in the middle layers is a monosynaptic event, then the virtually complete suppression of the fast EPSP by CNQX (RESULTS; Fig. 5) does implicate AMPA/KA receptors in transmission at thalamocortical synapses. Although it is difficult to prove that a response is monosynaptic, the fast EPSPs and the fast… | limitations[7] |
| limitation | Whether the preparation's evoked activation resembles the intact system is stated to be undetermined.— “It remains to be determined whether or not the cortical activation (e.g., IPSP magnitude and laminar profile) produced by MG stimulation in the primary slice represents a “natural” pattern, similar to that produced by acoustic stimulation in vivo” | limitations[8] |
| limitation | Inhibition may be incompletely developed at the age used, indicated by the marker staining in this material.— “For example, it is known that some aspects of cortical inhibitory systems are not fully developed in juvenile rodents (e.g., Dunning et al. 1999; Luhmann and Prince 1991; reviewed in Sutor and Luhmann 1995). In fact, this was indicated by the relatively modest cortical PV labeling observed here; PV is a marker for a class of cortical… | limitations[9] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | An in vitro mouse brain preparation can preserve functionally intact thalamocortical connections from the MGv to auditory cortex.— “The major finding of this study is that an in vitro preparation can be obtained from the mouse brain that contains functionally intact thalamocortical connections from the MGv to the ACx.” | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | Auditory thalamocortical transmission is carried by both AMPA/kainate and NMDA glutamate receptors.— “A second major finding is that auditory thalamocortical transmission involves both AMPA and NMDA types of glutamate receptors.” | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | Every primary slice analysed showed a dominant current sink in cortical layers 3-4 after medial geniculate stimulation.— “Thus Fig. 3B shows that all 22 slices had a dominant sink in layers 3– 4.” | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | Thalamus-evoked responses differ from those of conventional columnar stimulation, indicating columnar stimulation may not reliably activate thalamocortical inputs selectively.— “Fourth, we observed that these MG-evoked profiles, and the intracellular responses in layer 4, differ from those produced by conventional columnar stimulation, indicating that columnar stimulation may not be a reliable means of selectively activating thalamocortical inputs.” | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | A second 'shell' slice is presented in which subcortical stimulation appears to selectively activate synapses in superficial layer 1 of temporal cortex.— “Finally, a second in vitro preparation (the shell slice) is presented in which subcortical stimulation appears to selectively activate synapses in superficial layer 1 of temporal cortex.” | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | Tracing confirmed that layer 5 corticotectal axons pass through the shell stimulation region on their way to the inferior colliculus.— “These data confirm the hypothesis that axons belonging to layer 5 cortico-tectal cells project through the shell stimulation region on their way to the inferior colliculus.” | content_tags.findings[5] |
| quantity | 66 cells / 24 slices — number of intracellularly recorded layer 3-4 neurons and the number of primary slices they came from— “Sixty-six cells, located between 30 and 50% of the distance from the pia to white matter, were recorded from 24 primary slices.” | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 4.0 ± 0.1 ms — mean onset latency of the intracellular early response, statistically indistinguishable from the middle-layer CSD sink latency— “The onset latencies of the early responses averaged 4.0 (cid:9) 0.1 ms (n (cid:3) 58 cells with measurable latencies), which generally matched the simultaneously recorded layer 3– 4 field potentials and main CSD sink latencies (mean sink (cid:3) 4.1 (cid:9) 0.3 ms; P (cid:3) 0.81, unpaired t-test, intracellular vs. sink onset… | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| evidence status note | quantity — DAMAGED GLYPHS IN THIS QUOTE: (cid:3), (cid:9). These are raw PDF font glyph indices that leaked out in place of the characters they stand for - usually a mathematical operator. The quote is verbatim to the staged text and its anchor is sound; the STAGED TEXT is what is damaged. NOT repaired: the cid-to-character mapping is defined by the font embedded in that particular PDF, so guessing it would produce a clean and unverifiable quote. Repair needs the source PDF and is a re-staging job. | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| value source note | quantity — The value is written with the paper's own symbol (±). Our copy of the text prints it as '(cid:9)' ('4.0 (cid:9) 0.1 ms'), because the PDF's text layer maps its maths characters to the wrong codes. The value is read from the PDF, page 8. | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | 16/16 — proportion of histologically checked primary slices whose top contained at least part of the ventral medial geniculate— “The top of the primary slice always contained at least part of the MGv (16/16), and the bottom of the primary slice nearly always reached below the MGv (14/16).” | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | 15/20 — fraction of tested cells that displayed an inhibitory postsynaptic potential following the initial EPSP— “Of the cells tested this way, 15/20 displayed IPSPs (always following initial EPSPs).” | content_tags.quantities[3] |
| quantity | 6.0 ± 0.2 ms — mean onset latency of the shell-slice layer 1 surface sink, longer than the infragranular sink latency— “The mean onset latency for the shell slice surface sink was 6.0 (cid:9) 0.2 ms, while the mean infragranular sink latency was 4.4 (cid:9) 0.4 ms (P (cid:6) 0.02, paired t-test), suggesting that the infragranular sink is not a secondary phenomenon that follows the main surface sink.” | content_tags.quantities[4] |
| evidence status note | quantity — DAMAGED GLYPHS IN THIS QUOTE: (cid:6), (cid:9). These are raw PDF font glyph indices that leaked out in place of the characters they stand for - usually a mathematical operator. The quote is verbatim to the staged text and its anchor is sound; the STAGED TEXT is what is damaged. NOT repaired: the cid-to-character mapping is defined by the font embedded in that particular PDF, so guessing it would produce a clean and unverifiable quote. Repair needs the source PDF and is a re-staging job. | content_tags.quantities[4] |
| value source note | quantity — The value is written with the paper's own symbol (±). Our copy of the text prints it as '(cid:9)' ('6.0 (cid:9) 0.2 ms'), because the PDF's text layer maps its maths characters to the wrong codes. The value is read from the PDF, page 15. | content_tags.quantities[4] |
| quantity | 22 — number of primary slices with laminar CSD analysis, all of which showed a dominant middle-layer sink— “Thus Fig. 3B shows that all 22 slices had a dominant sink in layers 3– 4.” | content_tags.quantities[5] |
| variable | stimulus intensity (independent)— “As stimulus intensities were adjusted from threshold to higher values (mean threshold (cid:3) 39.3 (cid:9) 5.5 (cid:2)A, n (cid:3) 42), initial slopes and peak amplitudes generally increased sharply at first, then often approached asymptote at higher intensities.” | content_tags.variables[3] |
| evidence status note | variable — DAMAGED GLYPHS IN THIS QUOTE: (cid:2), (cid:3), (cid:9). These are raw PDF font glyph indices that leaked out in place of the characters they stand for - usually a mathematical operator. The quote is verbatim to the staged text and its anchor is sound; the STAGED TEXT is what is damaged. NOT repaired: the cid-to-character mapping is defined by the font embedded in that particular PDF, so guessing it would produce a clean and unverifiable quote. Repair needs the source PDF and is a re-staging job. | content_tags.variables[3] |
| variable | current source density (dependent)— “To determine the laminar locations of current sinks and sources, onedimensional current source density (CSD)… | content_tags.variables[4] |
| variable | amplitudes of the early responses (dependent) | content_tags.variables[5] |
| definition | on-beam stimulation | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | early response | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| definition | late responses | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| definition | primary slice | content_tags.definitions[4] |
| definition | shell slice Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[5] |
| concept | columnar stimulation Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[0] |
| concept | thalamocortical inputs Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[1] |
| concept | MG stimuli Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[2] |
| concept | on-beam stimuli Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[3] |
| concept | IPSPs Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[4] |
| concept | excitatory thalamic projections Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[5] |
| concept | cortical inhibitory interneurons Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[6] |
| t-test P | as written: paired t-test Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| evidence status note | t-test — DAMAGED GLYPHS IN THIS QUOTE: (cid:6). These are raw PDF font glyph indices that leaked out in place of the characters they stand for - usually a mathematical operator. The quote is verbatim to the staged text and its anchor is sound; the STAGED TEXT is what is damaged. NOT repaired: the cid-to-character mapping is defined by the font embedded in that particular PDF, so guessing it would produce a clean and unverifiable quote. Repair needs the source PDF and is a re-staging job. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| t-test P | as written: unpaired t-test Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| evidence status note | t-test — DAMAGED GLYPHS IN THIS QUOTE: (cid:2), (cid:6), (cid:9). These are raw PDF font glyph indices that leaked out in place of the characters they stand for - usually a mathematical operator. The quote is verbatim to the staged text and its anchor is sound; the STAGED TEXT is what is damaged. NOT repaired: the cid-to-character mapping is defined by the font embedded in that particular PDF, so guessing it would produce a clean and unverifiable quote. Repair needs the source PDF and is a re-staging job. | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| mean SE | as written: Mean values ... (±SE) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| evidence status note | mean — DAMAGED GLYPHS IN THIS QUOTE: (cid:10), (cid:3), (cid:4), (cid:9). These are raw PDF font glyph indices that leaked out in place of the characters they stand for - usually a mathematical operator. The quote is verbatim to the staged text and its anchor is sound; the STAGED TEXT is what is damaged. NOT repaired: the cid-to-character mapping is defined by the font embedded in that particular PDF, so guessing it would produce a clean and unverifiable quote. Repair needs the source PDF and is a re-staging job. | content_tags.statistics[2] |
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.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824