(cid:NN). The PDF this text was extracted from encodes 5 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 | cognitive and noncognitive skills as determinants of labour-market and behavioural outcomes— “This paper presents an analysis of the effects of both cognitive and noncognitive skills on wages, schooling, work experience, occupational choice and participation in a range of adolescent risky behaviors.” | |
| claim-type | existence— “This paper established that a low dimensional vector of cognitive and noncognitive skills explains a variety of labor market and behavioral outcomes.” | |
| method — evidence | — “Our model is a factor model with endogenous factor loadings.” | |
| transfer | from psychometrics / structural equation modelling (LISREL and MIMIC latent-variable models): The authors take the latent-variable measurement models built in psychometrics and extend them so that a choice variable (schooling) and background variables can enter the measurement equations of an economic model.— “the problems of endogeneity and measurement error. Our method extends the LISREL model” | transfers[0] |
| transfer | from psychology (the Rotter and Rosenberg scales): two psychology instruments - the Rotter Locus of Control Scale and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale - are imported into labour economics to stand for noncognitive skill— “The noncognitive measures available in the data set are the Rotter Locus of Control Scale which was administered in 1979 and the Rosenberg 5 Self-Esteem Scale which was administered in 1980.” [checked against the archived source, not this rendering] | transfers[1] |
| transfer | from military psychometrics (the ASVAB): cognitive skill is measured with five subtests of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, an instrument built for military selection and re-used as an economic variable— “Our analysis of test scores uses five measures of cognitive skills (arithmetic reasoning, word knowledge, paragraph comprehension, mathematical knowledge, and coding speed) derived from the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), which was administered to all sample participants in 1980 and 1981.” | transfers[2] |
| mechanism | A single low-dimensional pair of latent abilities acts as the common cause generating the observed clustering of risky adolescent behaviors together with schooling and wage outcomes.— “Our analysis explains the phenomenon of correlated risky behaviors using the same low dimensional model of latent skills that explains wages, employment and schooling attainment.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Noncognitive skills raise wages along two routes: directly by raising productivity, and indirectly by raising schooling attainment and accumulated work experience.— “and family background effects, raise wages through their direct effects on productivity as well” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | The GED wage penalty arises because GED holders' deficit in noncognitive skill lowers employment and work-experience accumulation and removes a trait the market pays for.— “have lower noncognitive skills than dropouts (see Figure 3) and hence are less likely to be employed” | mechanisms[2] |
| contradicts | the "g" theory of Herrnstein and Murray (1994) and Jensen (1998)— “This evidence contradicts the “g” theory of human behavior espoused by Herrnstein and Murray (1994), Jensen (1998) and others that focuses on the primacy of cognitive skills in explaining socioeconomic outcomes.” | claim_relations[0] |
| builds-on | Hansen, Heckman, and Mullen (2004)— “Building on the analysis of Hansen, Heckman, and Mullen (2004), we correct measured test scores for these problems.” | claim_relations[1] |
| extends | the LISREL model of Jöreskog (1977) and the MIMIC model of Jöreskog and Goldberger (1975)— “Our method extends the LISREL model of J¨oreskog (1977) and the MIMIC model of J¨oreskog and Goldberger (1975) to account for the effects of choice variables (schooling) and background variables on the measurements of cognitive and noncognitive skills where the schooling, in turn, depends on the latent factors.” | claim_relations[2] |
| replicates | Neal and Johnson (1996); Hansen, Heckman, and Mullen (2004); Heckman, Larenas, and Urzua (2004)— “The first finding corroborates the earlier analyses of Neal and Johnson (1996), Hansen, Heckman, and Mullen (2004) and Heckman, Larenas, and Urzua (2004).” | claim_relations[3] |
| contradicts | Herrnstein and Murray (1994) and Herrnstein and Wilson (1985) on cognitive ability and crime— “Contrary to claims made by Herrnstein and Murray (1994) and Herrnstein and Wilson (1985), it is noncognitive ability that is the dominant factor in explaining different rates of participation in crime, and not cognitive ability.” | claim_relations[4] |
| contradicts | the single-skill signalling model of Arrow (1973) and Spence (1973)— “Our evidence that multiple abilities determine schooling challenges the conventional single skill signalling model due to Arrow (1973) and Spence (1973).” | claim_relations[5] |
| sense | noncognitive skills - AS MEASURED: scores on attitude scales, which the paper calls at best imperfect measures of the individual's true ability— “In addition, scores on the attitude scales used to proxy noncognitive ability, as well as the cognitive scores, are likely to be affected by family background characteristics, and are at best imperfect measures of an individual’s true noncognitive and cognitive abilities.” | senses[0] |
| sense | noncognitive skills - AS MODELLED: a latent factor whose scale is fixed by normalization rather than by measurement— “As explained in Section (3.5) two normalizations are required to assure identification of the model. These set the scale of the factors.” | senses[1] |
| sense | Bayesian methods - used here for computation only, with the identification argument stated to be strictly classical and the priors asymptotically irrelevant— “Our use of Bayesian methods is only a computational convenience. Our identification analysis is strictly classical.17 Under our assumptions, the priors we use are asymptotically irrelevant.” | senses[2] |
| sense | test score - a quantity that depends on schooling completed AT THE TIME OF THE TEST, so the measurement is not independent of the outcome being explained— “In our model, the factor loadings in the test score equations depend on schooling at the time of the test. Therefore, for those who complete their schooling by the time of the test both latent factors affect both cognitive and noncognitive tests (albeit in an indirect way).” | senses[3] |
| sense | importance - IN THE SENSE THIS PAPER ADOPTS: the size of the skill gradient, how much an outcome moves when a person is moved across the distribution of one ability. ON THE RIVAL MEASURE THE RANKING REVERSES AND THE PAPER SAYS SO IN THE SAME SENTENCE: cognitive skills 'explain much more of the variance of (log) wages', while by skill gradients the two are similar— “Although cognitive skills explain much more of the variance of (log) wages, their effects on (log) 33The standardized coefficient is obtained by multiplying the original coefficient by the standard deviation of the variable to which it is associated. 27 wages (as measured by skill gradients) are similar to the effects of the noncognitive… [checked against the archived source, not this rendering] | senses[4] |
| sense | importance - A THIRD SENSE THE PAPER NAMES AND EXPLICITLY DOES NOT CLAIM: equal strength in its own sense 'does not translate into equal cost of changing these skills', so the finding is silent on which ability is cheaper to change— “Of course, equal strength in the sense we have used it does not translate into equal cost of changing these skills.” | senses[5] |
| control | holding cognitive ability constant when comparing GED recipients with high school dropouts — held — rules out cognitive ability as the explanation of any wage difference attributed to the credential - and with it removed, the difference reverses rather than shrinking— “However, once cognitive ability is controlled for, GED recipients have the same or lower hourly wages as those of high school dropouts.” | controls[0] |
| note | cognitive skills —operationalised-as→ ASVAB — Five subtests of a battery built to decide military eligibility - the paper says elsewhere that the AFQT composite 'is a general measure of trainability and a primary…'. An instrument designed for a selection decision is here the measure of the construct.— “Our analysis of test scores uses five measures of cognitive skills (arithmetic reasoning, word knowledge, paragraph comprehension, mathematical knowledge, and coding speed) derived from the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), which was administered to all sample participants in 1980 and 1981.” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | cognitive skills —operationalised-as→ ASVAB — 0.9— “Our analysis of test scores uses five measures of cognitive skills (arithmetic reasoning, word knowledge, paragraph comprehension, mathematical knowledge, and coding speed) derived from the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), which was administered to all sample participants in 1980 and 1981.” | concept_edges[0] |
| audit | noncognitive skills —operationalised-as→ Rotter Locus of Control Scale — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'noncognitive measures', not 'noncognitive skills'.— “We use two attitudinal scales, the Rotter Locus of Control Scale and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, as our noncognitive measures. We choose these measures because of their availability in the NLSY.” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | noncognitive skills —operationalised-as→ Rotter Locus of Control Scale — THE PAPER STATES ITS REASON FOR CHOOSING THEM AND IT IS NOT FITNESS: '…these measures because of their availability in the NLSY…' The construct carrying the paper's headline claim against Herrnstein and Murray is measured by a four-item abbreviated locus-of-control scale and a self-esteem scale, picked for what the survey happened to contain.— “We use two attitudinal scales, the Rotter Locus of Control Scale and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, as our noncognitive measures. We choose these measures because of their availability in the NLSY.” | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | noncognitive skills —operationalised-as→ Rotter Locus of Control Scale — 0.85— “We use two attitudinal scales, the Rotter Locus of Control Scale and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, as our noncognitive measures. We choose these measures because of their availability in the NLSY.” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | cognitive skills —operationalised-as→ coding speed — THE UNIT OF THE LATENT ABILITY IS SET BY WHICHEVER INDICATOR WAS GIVEN THE 1. The cognitive factor's loading is normalised to 1 on CODING SPEED (ASVAB 5) and the noncognitive factor's on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, both 'for individuals in grades 9 to 11 at the time of the test' - so the scale is fixed by an indicator choice AND a schooling subgroup. The record already carries the existence of the normalisation; this names what the units are. NOTE THE HEADLINE COMPARISON DOES NOT DEPEND ON IT: the paper compares the two abilities by moving people between DECILES of each factor's own distribution, which is invariant to the scale.— “Our analysis of test scores uses five measures of cognitive skills (arithmetic reasoning, word knowledge, paragraph comprehension, mathematical knowledge, and coding speed) derived from the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), which was administered to all sample participants in 1980 and 1981.” | concept_edges[2] |
| weight | cognitive skills —operationalised-as→ coding speed — 0.8— “Our analysis of test scores uses five measures of cognitive skills (arithmetic reasoning, word knowledge, paragraph comprehension, mathematical knowledge, and coding speed) derived from the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), which was administered to all sample participants in 1980 and 1981.” | concept_edges[2] |
| note | schooling —causes→ AFQT — THE PROXY IS CAUSED BY THE OUTCOME IT IS USED TO EXPLAIN: each additional year of schooling raises measured AFQT by 2 to 4 percentage points on average, and '…THIS CREATES A REVERSE CAUSALITY…' problem. The paper says flatly in its conclusion that schooling '…raises measured cognitive…' and noncognitive ability. Naming this is the reason the paper builds a latent-factor model instead of regressing on test scores.— “Neal and Johnson (1996) and Hansen, Heckman, and Mullen (2004) demonstrate that each additional year of schooling increases an individual’s measured AFQT score by 2 to 4 percentage points, on average. This creates a reverse causality problem.” | concept_edges[3] |
| weight | schooling —causes→ AFQT — 0.9— “Neal and Johnson (1996) and Hansen, Heckman, and Mullen (2004) demonstrate that each additional year of schooling increases an individual’s measured AFQT score by 2 to 4 percentage points, on average. This creates a reverse causality problem.” | concept_edges[3] |
| evidence status note | concept — DAMAGED GLYPHS IN THIS QUOTE: (cid:48). 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.— “We normalize the loadings (αCi (sT ), αNj (s(cid:48) T )) of the cognitive (f C) and noncognitive (f N ) factors to be equal to 1 in the equations associated with coding speed (ASVAB 5) and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale for individuals in grades 9 to 11 at the time of the test, respectively.” | concepts[6] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| for which use | limitation — any mechanistic reading of the results: WE DO NOT ESTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS FOR EACH OF THE CHANNELS THROUGH WHICH COGNITIVE AND NONCOGNITIVE ABILITIES MIGHT OPERATE— “In this paper, we do not estimate relationships for each of the channels through which cognitive and noncognitive abilities might operate.” | limitations[0] |
| for which use | limitation — every claim stated in terms of noncognitive skill: THERE ARE MANY ASPECTS ... SELF CONTROL, TIME PREFERENCE, SOCIABILITY ... IT IS LESS LIKELY THAT ONE TRAIT CAPTURES ALL ASPECTS - the construct is collapsed to one latent factor— “Since there are many aspects of noncognitive skills – self control, time preference, sociability, and so forth – it is less likely that one trait captures all aspects of these behaviors.” | limitations[1] |
| for which use | limitation — every estimate in the paper: THE EMPIRICAL RESULTS THAT WE GENERATE ARE IDENTIFIED FROM THE PARAMETRIC STRUCTURE OF THE MODEL - the support conditions for semiparametric identification are not met, so the answers come from the assumed form— “This evidence suggests that the empirical results that we generate are identified from the parametric structure of the model.” | limitations[2] |
| for which use | limitation — any conclusion about sequencing or timing: OUR THEORETICAL MODEL IS STATIC AND DOES NOT CONSIDER THE TIMING OF DECISIONS— “Our theoretical model is static and does not consider the timing of decisions.” | limitations[3] |
| for which use | limitation — the CNLSY79 corroboration only: MANY OF THE CHILDREN ARE STILL YOUNG AND WE LACK INFORMATION ON THEIR WAGES, OCCUPATIONAL STATUS AND EMPLOYMENT AT AGE 30— “A disadvantage of these data is that many of the children are still young and we lack information on their wages, occupational status and employment at age 30.” | limitations[4] |
| for which use | limitation — the interpretation of the noncognitive measures: IT WOULD BE BETTER TO USE A WIDER ARRAY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS AND ... TO CONNECT THEM WITH MORE CONVENTIONAL MEASURES OF PREFERENCE PARAMETERS IN ECONOMICS— “Ideally, it would be better to use a wider array of psychological measurements and, as previously noted, to connect them with more conventional measures of preference parameters in economics.” | limitations[5] |
| for which use | limitation — the magnitude of a factor score as a quantity of ability: the paper states two normalizations are required for identification and that they set the scale of the factors— “As explained in Section (3.5) two normalizations are required to assure identification of the model. These set the scale of the factors.” | limitations[6] |
| for which use | limitation — treating an OLS estimate as a bound on the effect: the paper states the biases run in different directions so the sign of the difference from its own model cannot be predicted— “Because these problems likely bias the estimates in different directions, we cannot predict whether OLS estimates will be higher or lower than those of our model.” | limitations[7] |
| for which use | limitation — any test score read as the ability itself: the paper states these scores are affected by family background and are at best imperfect measures of an individual's true abilities— “In addition, scores on the attitude scales used to proxy noncognitive ability, as well as the cognitive scores, are likely to be affected by family background characteristics, and are at best imperfect measures of an individual’s true noncognitive and cognitive abilities.” | limitations[8] |
| for which use | limitation — the noncognitive factor as the full space of noncognitive ability: the authors state a wider array of psychological measurements would ideally have been used— “Ideally, it would be better to use a wider array of psychological measurements and, as previously noted, to connect them with more conventional measures of preference parameters in economics.” | limitations[9] |
| for which use | limitation — attributing an effect to a particular channel: the paper states it does not estimate the relationships for each channel separately and that its model approximates the general one— “Our econometric model is a linear-in-the-parameters approximation to this general model. In this paper, we do not estimate relationships for each of the channels through which cognitive and noncognitive abilities might operate.” | limitations[10] |
| for which use | limitation — the claim that test scores and behaviours are interchangeable proxies: the paper states this in principle and leaves the task for future work— “In principle, one can determine which factors are common across tests and preference parameters. Test scores and behaviors can be used interchangeably to proxy factors. This task is left for future work.” | limitations[11] |
| evidence status note | sense — PAGE FURNITURE IS SPLICED INTO THE 'evidence' QUOTE - the text of footnote 33 and a page number, between 'their effects on (log)' and 'wages (as measured'. The words on either side of it were never continuous on the page; read the quote with it deleted.— “Although cognitive skills explain much more of the variance of (log) wages, their effects on (log) 33The standardized coefficient is obtained by multiplying the original coefficient by the standard deviation of the variable to which it is associated. 27 wages (as measured by skill gradients) are similar to the effects of the noncognitive… [checked against the archived source, not this rendering] | senses[4] |
| replication | untested | |
| no type for this | ability → schooling — THE TWO CANNOT BE SEPARATED IN THIS STUDY - the DESIGN form / It bounds what the paper's own results can mean, and it lives in a methods paragraph where nothing downstream will find it. The confound is between the paper's own explanatory variables, so it bounds every coefficient in the table it is attached to.— “The least squares estimates reported in Table 1 cannot distinguish whether higher “ability” (as proxied by our cognitive measure) causes higher wages or whether additional years of schooling cause both higher measured cognitive scores and higher wages.” | unhoused_relations[0] |
| limitation | The paper does not estimate the separate channels (preferences, discount rate, human-capital productivity, market productivity) through which the abilities operate.— “In this paper, we do not estimate relationships for each of the channels through which cognitive and noncognitive abilities might operate.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | Collapsing noncognitive skill into a single latent factor is unlikely to capture all its aspects.— “Since there are many aspects of noncognitive skills – self control, time preference, sociability, and so forth – it is less likely that one trait captures all aspects of these behaviors.” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | Support conditions for semiparametric identification are not met, so results rest on the parametric structure of the model.— “This evidence suggests that the empirical results that we generate are identified from the parametric structure of the model.” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | The underlying theoretical model is static and ignores the timing of decisions.— “Our theoretical model is static and does not consider the timing of decisions.” | limitations[3] |
| limitation | The corroborating CNLSY79 data lack adult outcomes and have small samples.— “A disadvantage of these data is that many of the children are still young and we lack information on their wages, occupational status and employment at age 30.” | limitations[4] |
| limitation | The noncognitive measures used (Rotter, Rosenberg) are narrower than would be ideal and are not linked to economic preference parameters.— “Ideally, it would be better to use a wider array of psychological measurements and, as previously noted, to connect them with more conventional measures of preference parameters in economics.” | limitations[5] |
| limitation | The scale of the two latent abilities is not measured but set: two normalizations are stated to be required for identification, and they fix the scale of the factors.— “As explained in Section (3.5) two normalizations are required to assure identification of the model. These set the scale of the factors.” | limitations[6] |
| limitation | The direction of the bias in the conventional estimates is stated to be unknown, because the problems push in different directions.— “Because these problems likely bias the estimates in different directions, we cannot predict whether OLS estimates will be higher or lower than those of our model.” | limitations[7] |
| limitation | The measures used are declared imperfect: the attitude scales proxying noncognitive ability are affected by family background and are called at best imperfect measures of true ability.— “In addition, scores on the attitude scales used to proxy noncognitive ability, as well as the cognitive scores, are likely to be affected by family background characteristics, and are at best imperfect measures of an individual’s true noncognitive and cognitive abilities.” | limitations[8] |
| limitation | What the construct covers is bounded by the instrument available in the survey, and the authors say a wider array of psychological measurement would have been better.— “Ideally, it would be better to use a wider array of psychological measurements and, as previously noted, to connect them with more conventional measures of preference parameters in economics.” | limitations[9] |
| limitation | The channels through which the abilities act are not separately estimated; the model is a linear-in-the-parameters approximation.— “Our econometric model is a linear-in-the-parameters approximation to this general model. In this paper, we do not estimate relationships for each of the channels through which cognitive and noncognitive abilities might operate.” | limitations[10] |
| limitation | An interchangeability the paper asserts in principle is explicitly deferred rather than shown.— “In principle, one can determine which factors are common across tests and preference parameters. Test scores and behaviors can be used interchangeably to proxy factors. This task is left for future work.” | limitations[11] |
| limitation | The disputed word in this literature is 'importance', and the paper's claim holds under one sense of it and reverses under another that the paper states in the same sentence: cognitive skills explain much more of the variance of log wages, while the skill gradients of the two abilities are similar. The paper marks its choice ('for the sense of importance adopted in this paper') rather than leaving it implied, which is what makes the reversal checkable at all. | limitations[12] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | A low-dimensional vector of cognitive and noncognitive skills explains a variety of labor-market and behavioral outcomes. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | For many dimensions of social performance, cognitive and noncognitive skills are equally important. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | Noncognitive skills shape schooling choices and additionally raise wages conditional on schooling. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | Schooling raises measured test scores. | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | Male GED holders have a worse noncognitive ability distribution than dropouts. | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | Noncognitive rather than cognitive ability is what mainly explains differences in criminal participation. | content_tags.findings[5] |
| finding | The two latent skills carry different hedonic prices in the labor markets of different schooling levels. | content_tags.findings[6] |
| finding | Estimated returns to ability shrink when test scores are corrected for the schooling attained at test date, showing that endogenous test scores bias conventional OLS estimates upward. | content_tags.findings[7] |
| quantity | 9% — share of the variance of log wages explained by the cognitive ability measure when schooling is not controlled for | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 0.9% — share of the variance of log wages explained by the noncognitive measure for men 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.quantities[1] |
| quantity | 77% — proportion of the trace of the male cognitive test-score correlation matrix explained by a single factor 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.quantities[2] |
| quantity | 31% — proportion of the trace of the noncognitive correlation matrix explained by a single factor, much lower than for cognitive scores 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.quantities[3] |
| quantity | 2 to 4 percentage points — increase in measured AFQT score produced by each additional year of schooling 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.quantities[4] |
| quantity | 66% — share of the Perry Preschool treatment group graduating from high school by age 18 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.quantities[5] |
| quantity | 431.65 with 150 degrees of freedom — chi-squared statistic rejecting the null that schooling does not affect measured cognitive tests for males 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.quantities[6] |
| quantity | 116.53 with 40 degrees of freedom — chi-squared statistic rejecting the null that schooling does not affect the noncognitive measurement equations 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.quantities[7] |
| variable | risky behaviors (dependent) 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.variables[2] |
| variable | cognitive skills (dependent) 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.variables[3] |
| variable | schooling level at the time of the test (moderator) 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.variables[5] |
| variable | gender (moderator) 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.variables[6] |
| variable | ethnicity dummies (control) 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.variables[7] |
| variable | cohort dummies (control) 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.variables[8] |
| variable | local labor market conditions (control) 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.variables[9] |
| variable | region of residence dummies (control) 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.variables[10] |
| variable | work experience (dependent) 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.variables[11] |
| variable | choice of occupation (dependent) 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.variables[12] |
| variable | employment (dependent) 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.variables[13] |
| variable | schooling (dependent) 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.variables[14] |
| definition | GED 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[0] |
| definition | AFQT 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[1] |
| definition | illegal activities 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[2] |
| definition | Rotter Internal-External Locus of Control Scale 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[3] |
| concept | noncognitive skills 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 | cognitive skills 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 | normalizations 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 | measurement error 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 | ASVAB 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 | Rotter Locus of Control Scale 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 | coding speed 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] |
| concept | AFQT 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[7] |
| concept | schooling 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[8] |
| ordinary least squares regression | as written: a standard least squares analysis 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] |
| probit / multinomial discrete choice models | as written: probit analysis and multinomial choice models 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] |
| Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo estimation | as written: Bayesian MCMC methods 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] |
| chi-squared test χ2 | as written: the χ2 test for the null 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[3] |
| goodness-of-fit test | as written: Overall goodness of fit tests are passed 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[4] |
| factor analysis | as written: one factor explains 77% of the trace of the ... correlation matrix 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[5] |
| correlation | as written: The cross-correlations weaken 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[6] |
| standard error | as written: Standard errors in parentheses 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[7] |
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