phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | task-unrelated thought (mind-wandering)— “The present study used EEG to seek support for these component-process accounts by examining the neural correlates of deliberate and spontaneous task unrelated thought.” | |
| claim-type | existence— “In contrast, increased alpha power and cortical phase-locking were linked to deliberate off-task thoughts, while reductions of evoked sensory response were prevalent in spontaneous off-task episodes.” | |
| method — evidence | — “Electroencephalography (EEG) was used to record ongoing brain activity during this period.” | |
| mechanism | Deliberate off-task thought raises alpha activity, which inhibits irrelevant sensory input in a top-down manner and thereby protects the internally generated train of thought.— “We found that when participants were engaged in deliberate off-task thought, alpha activity was increased, a pattern that is often observed when individuals are deliberately engaged in internal tasks 71,110,118, and may reflect patterns of top down inhibition of irrelevant sensory input.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Spontaneous off-task thought arises because top-down maintenance of the task set fails, which shows up as jointly reduced P2 (higher-order perceptual processing) and N2 (conflict monitoring) responses.— “The combination of reduced P2 and N2 linked with spontaneous off-task thought suggests that this aspect of off-task experience may be associated with failure in the top down maintenance of the appropriate task set.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | Intention determines whether executive control is being used to organise the internal train of thought or is intermittently failing: deliberate off-task states reflect motivated maintenance of a task set, spontaneous ones reflect lapses in maintaining it.— “In particular, based on our data we may expect that deliberate off-task thought is linked to the motivated maintenance of a task set, while more spontaneous off-task episodes are linked to intermittent failures to maintain task set in attention.” | mechanisms[2] |
| replicates | prior ERP studies of reduced stimulus processing during task-unrelated thinking (refs 26, 36, 38, 39)— “These results support prior studies that show reduced processing of stimuli in this time range for both online and offline measures of task unrelated thinking26,36,38,39.” | claim_relations[0] |
| builds-on | component process accounts of ongoing thought— “Consistent with component process accounts of ongoing thought these data suggest that periods of off-task thought with different experiential features depend on a different balance of neural processes.” | claim_relations[1] |
| builds-on | prior work linking spontaneous off-task thought to low external alertness and low executive control (ref 117)— “This interpretation seems to be consistent with prior studies that suggest that spontaneous off-task thought is primarily linked to lack of external alertness and lower executive control117.” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | task-unrelated thought - DELIBERATE (dTUT): the off-task state engaged in intentionally, one of two kinds the study separates— “Our study set out to explore the common and distinct neurocognitive processes that underlie patterns of intentional and unintentional off-task states, deliberate (dTUT) and spontaneous task-unrelated thought (sTUT) respectively.” | senses[0] |
| sense | task-unrelated thought - AS THE P3 SEES IT: not two kinds at all, since the component is attenuated off-task regardless of intention— “Event-related potentials, such as the P3, were attenuated during off-task states, regardless of whether they were intentional or not.” | senses[1] |
| sense | theta ITPC - a phase-coherence quantity INTERPRETED as a measure of attentional stability, so the construct enters by interpretation rather than by measurement— “Theta ITPC, interpreted as a measure of attentional stability84, was found to be decreased in the parietal cortex” | senses[2] |
| sense | off-task thought - framed by the field it comes from as 'a family of states with overlapping experiential neural and cognitive features' rather than as a category with members— “Recent views from both psychology 24 and neuroscience25 have argued that off-task experiences can be understood as a family of states with overlapping experiential neural and cognitive features” | senses[3] |
| sense | P3 reduction - offered as an index of EITHER perceptual decoupling OR the level of attention to the task, in one clause, without adjudication— “reduction of the P3 amplitude, which can be considered an index of perceptual decoupling or the level of attention directed towards the task at hand” | senses[4] |
| control | probe-caught sampling prompts interrupting the task pseudo-randomly after 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 or 48 trials — held — rules out participants anticipating the probe and preparing an answer - a fixed interval would turn a measure of spontaneous thought into a measure of expectation— “Probe-caught (PC) sampling prompts pseudo-randomly interrupted the task after 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42 or 48 trials (approx. 28, 42, 56 ,76, 83, 97, 111 sec).” | controls[0] |
| audit | dTUT —distinct-from→ sTUT — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'deliberate' and 'spontaneous off-task' thought, not 'dTUT' / 'sTUT'.— “Event-related potentials, such as the P3, were attenuated during off-task states, regardless of whether they were intentional or not. In contrast, increased alpha power and cortical phase-locking were linked to deliberate off-task thoughts, while reductions of evoked sensory response were prevalent in spontaneous off-task episodes” | concept_edges[0] |
| differs in | dTUT —distinct-from→ sTUT — WHICH INSTRUMENT IS ASKED. Alpha power and cortical phase-locking separate them; the P3 does not, being attenuated off-task regardless of intention. The distinction the paper's title asserts holds on two measures and fails on the one the literature relies on most— “Event-related potentials, such as the P3, were attenuated during off-task states, regardless of whether they were intentional or not. In contrast, increased alpha power and cortical phase-locking were linked to deliberate off-task thoughts, while reductions of evoked sensory response were prevalent in spontaneous off-task episodes” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | dTUT —distinct-from→ sTUT — WHETHER THESE ARE TWO KINDS OF THOUGHT OR ONE DEPENDS ENTIRELY ON WHICH MEASURE IS ASKED, and the paper's abstract puts both answers in consecutive sentences. The P3 - the literature's most established marker, and the record already carries a limitation saying so - is attenuated off-task 'regardless of whether they were intentional or not', so on that instrument the two states are ONE. Alpha power and cortical phase-locking separate them. A category claim that is true of one instrument and false of another, in one dataset.— “Event-related potentials, such as the P3, were attenuated during off-task states, regardless of whether they were intentional or not. In contrast, increased alpha power and cortical phase-locking were linked to deliberate off-task thoughts, while reductions of evoked sensory response were prevalent in spontaneous off-task episodes” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | dTUT —distinct-from→ sTUT — 0.9— “Event-related potentials, such as the P3, were attenuated during off-task states, regardless of whether they were intentional or not. In contrast, increased alpha power and cortical phase-locking were linked to deliberate off-task thoughts, while reductions of evoked sensory response were prevalent in spontaneous off-task episodes” | concept_edges[0] |
| audit | P3 —operationalised-as→ task unrelated thought — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but P3 amplitude 'can be considered an INDEX of' perceptual decoupling or attention to the task; operationalised-as task-unrelated thought is loose.— “reduction of the P3 amplitude, which can be considered an index of perceptual decoupling or the level of attention directed towards the task at hand” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | P3 —operationalised-as→ task unrelated thought — The P3 reduction is read as 'an index of perceptual decoupling or the level of attention…' - TWO different readings offered in one clause, joined by 'or', and the paper does not choose between them.— “reduction of the P3 amplitude, which can be considered an index of perceptual decoupling or the level of attention directed towards the task at hand” | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | P3 —operationalised-as→ task unrelated thought — 0.8— “reduction of the P3 amplitude, which can be considered an index of perceptual decoupling or the level of attention directed towards the task at hand” | concept_edges[1] |
| audit | alpha power —operationalised-as→ dTUT — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but increased alpha power was LINKED TO deliberate off-task thoughts; operationalised-as is loose. | concept_edges[2] |
| weight | alpha power —operationalised-as→ dTUT — 0.8 | concept_edges[2] |
| retracted | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · concept — RE-GROUNDED. The evidence was THE PAPER'S OWN TITLE, verbatim and whole - 'Distinct neural markers for intentional and unintentional…'. The replacement is the sentence that introduces the concept and both of its subtypes with the abbreviations the paper then uses, dTUT and sTUT, which is what a concepts row should be anchored to. Same 0x08 cause as the other three rows in this batch. 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. 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] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| for which use | limitation — the attentional-state assignment: ALTHOUGH THE TEMPORAL DYNAMICS AND THE EXACT ONSET OF ATTENTIONAL SHIFTS REMAIN UNKNOWN AND DIFFICULT TO ASSESS, WE CHOSE A WINDOW OF FOUR SART TRIALS PRIOR TO A THOUGHT PROBE 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. | limitations[0] |
| for which use | limitation — any comparison between the self-caught and probe-caught conditions: PARTICIPANTS WERE ONLY INSTRUCTED TO TRIGGER A SC PROBE WHEN THEY CAUGHT THEMSELVES OFF-TASK AND AS A RESULT THE SC CONDITION LACKED ON-TASK REPORTS 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. | limitations[1] |
| for which use | limitation — the PC_OT/MW comparison only: PARTICIPANTS THAT DID NOT HAVE AT LEAST 8 TRIALS WERE NOT CONSIDERED WHICH REDUCED THE NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS FOR THE PC_OT/MW PAIR TO 15 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. | limitations[2] |
| for which use | limitation — a P3 attenuation as evidence about the KIND of off-task state: this study reports the P3 attenuated during off-task states regardless of whether they were intentional 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. | limitations[3] |
| for which use | limitation — the artefact-cleaned data in this study: components were rejected at a 95% probability threshold chosen to favour preserving neural activity, so the cleaning errs toward keeping signal 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. | limitations[4] |
| for which use | limitation — the channel coverage of these averages: channels near the face were excluded on the grounds of higher susceptibility to artefacts 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. | limitations[5] |
| evidential status | mechanism — the paper's own words: may reflect 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. | mechanisms[0] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | The four-trial pre-probe window is an a priori choice, since the true onset of an attentional shift is unknown. 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. | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The self-caught probe condition structurally lacks on-task reports, so the two condition pairs are not symmetric. 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. | limitations[1] |
| limitation | Trial-count exclusions cut the on-task versus off-task comparison to 15 participants. 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. | limitations[2] |
| limitation | The most established marker in this literature does not distinguish the two states the paper is about: it is attenuated off-task whether the thought was intentional or not. 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. | limitations[3] |
| limitation | The artefact-rejection threshold is a choice, and the authors state which way they wanted it to err. 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. | limitations[4] |
| limitation | Channels were excluded on a stated susceptibility argument rather than on measured artefact. 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. | limitations[5] |
| limitation | The paper's central distinction is instrument-relative and the abstract says so in consecutive sentences: the P3 treats deliberate and spontaneous off-task thought as one state, alpha power and phase-locking treat them as two. 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. | limitations[6] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Probe-caught off-task periods showed reduced P1 and P2 amplitude over the right parieto-occipital site PO4 and reduced amplitude over parieto-central sites in the P3 window (268-388 ms). 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.findings[0] |
| finding | Alpha power in the trials preceding a report was significantly higher before deliberate off-task thought (1.54 dB) than before spontaneous off-task thought (0.58 dB). 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.findings[1] |
| finding | Inter-trial phase coherence was significantly greater before deliberate than before spontaneous off-task thought (.52 vs .45 across all averaged channels). 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.findings[2] |
| finding | The P2 component was significantly smaller before spontaneous than before deliberate off-task thought at both PO3 and PO4. 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.findings[3] |
| finding | Fronto-central delta/theta power at FCz was significantly lower relative to baseline before off-task reports (-2.69 dB) than before on-task reports (-1.89 dB). 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.findings[4] |
| finding | The stimulus-evoked alpha-beta event-related desynchronization differed by attentional state, reaching -2.27 dB before off-task reports versus -1.13 dB before on-task reports. 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.findings[5] |
| finding | Inter-trial phase coherence did not distinguish on-task from off-task states in any of the three electrode sets. 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.findings[6] |
| finding | Tonic (non-evoked) alpha power showed no significant on-task versus off-task difference at any electrode selection. 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.findings[7] |
| finding | Increased alpha power and phase-locking went with deliberate off-task thought, while reduced evoked sensory responses prevailed in spontaneous off-task episodes. 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.findings[8] |
| quantity | 26 — participants recorded with EEG during the fixed SART 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[0] |
| quantity | 71.4% — share of the average 65.3 thought probes per participant that were self-caught rather than probe-caught 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 | 11% — proportion of SART trials that were no-go targets (the digit 6) 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 | 2315 msec — fixed inter-stimulus interval between SART digits 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 | 9.3 sec — length of the four-trial pre-probe window taken to reflect the reported attentional state 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 | 512 Hz — sampling rate of the 64-channel EEG recording 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 | 19 and 18 — subjects retained for the ERP analysis of the on-task/off-task pair and of the deliberate/spontaneous pair 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 | t(17)=2.25 p=.038 — test of the alpha-power difference between deliberate and spontaneous off-task pre-trials 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] |
| quantity | .52 vs .45 — mean inter-trial phase coherence before deliberate versus spontaneous off-task reports across all averaged channels 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[8] |
| variable | component amplitude (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 | inter-trial phase coherence (ITPC) (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[4] |
| variable | inter-stimulus interval (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[5] |
| variable | prestimulus baseline (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[6] |
| definition | inter-trial phase coherence (ITPC) 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 | PC probe 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 | SC probe 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] |
| definition | component process account of ongoing thought 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[4] |
| definition | perceptual decoupling 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] |
| definition | dTUT 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[6] |
| definition | sTUT 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[7] |
| concept | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · task unrelated thought 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 | dTUT 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 | P3 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 | alpha power 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 | sTUT 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] |
| repeated-measures ANOVA F | as written: 2*2*3 repeatedmeasures analysis of variance (ANOVA) 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] |
| paired-samples t-test t | as written: paired sample t-tests were conducted 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] |
| cluster-based permutation test | as written: cluster-based permutation testing 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] |
| Monte-Carlo randomisation null distribution p | as written: the Monte-Carlo p-value ... a randomization null distribution, obtained here from 3000 random draws 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] |
| Greenhouse-Geisser sphericity correction | as written: Greenhouse-corrected p-values 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] |
| significance level α | as written: The overall alpha level was set at 0.05. 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] |
| independent component analysis ICA | as written: ICA, a blind-source separation method 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] |
| mean and standard deviation M, SD | as written: age M: 25 SD: 4.3 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