phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | media effects on voting behavior— “We conducted a field experiment to measure the effect of exposure to newspapers on political behavior and opinion.” | |
| claim-type | existence— “Our investigation of the effect of newspapers on political attitudes, behavior, and subject knowledge of news events found that even short exposure to a daily newspaper appears to influence voting behavior and may affect turnout behavior.” | |
| method — evidence | — “Before the 2005 Virginia gubernatorial election, we randomly assigned individuals to a Washington Post free subscription treatment, a Washington Times free subscription treatment, or a control treatment.” | |
| transfer | from psychology: The online-processing model of attitude formation, taken from psychological work on impression formation and persuasion, is used to explain why candidate preference moved without any measurable gain in factual knowledge— “Drawing on work from psychology (Norman H. Anderson and Stephen Hubert 1963, and W. A. Watts and W. J. McGuire 1964), political scientists have constructed models of online processing of political information” | transfers[0] |
| mechanism | Online processing: readers update their candidate evaluations as information arrives but do not retain the facts that moved them, which is why opinions shift while measured knowledge does not— “political scientists have constructed models of online processing of political information, where citizens update their judgments in response to the flow of information but do not retain memory of the particular facts that caused them to revise their views” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Shared content beats slant: both papers covered war casualties and administration scandals during a period bad for Republicans, so what the two papers had in common moved readers in the same direction— “It may be that what the coverage had in common was more important than any differences between the newspapers.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | Continued exposure after the election — leftover subscription weeks plus voluntary renewals — carries the treatment forward and explains why turnout moved in 2006 but not 2005— “This could be a result of the post-election receipt of the remainder of the ten-week newspaper subscriptions or the treatment that resulted from the 17 percent of the Post treatment group who renewed their subscription after the free period ended.” | mechanisms[2] |
| replicates | Gentzkow (2006)— “Our finding that turnout among the treatment groups was about 3 percentage points higher than the control group is consistent with previous work showing positive turnout effects from newspaper reading (Gentzkow 2006) and suggests newspaper exposure might have an important long term effect on the level of political interest.” | claim_relations[0] |
| sense | treatment - AS ASSIGNMENT: which households were sent a free subscription, which is the thing actually randomised— “we randomly assigned individuals to a Washington Post free subscription treatment, a Washington Times free subscription treatment, or a control treatment.” | senses[0] |
| sense | treatment - AS EXPOSURE: whether the newspaper was read, which the paper states it cannot be sure of and can only proxy through three survey measures— “Our follow-up survey provides three measures of the effect of newspaper provision on newspaper reading: whether subjects receive a newspaper, which newspaper they receive, and the frequency with which they read a newspaper” | senses[1] |
| sense | media effect - separated into SLANT and EXPOSURE, with the paper reporting that slant mattered less than exposure in this case— “We find no effect of either paper on political knowledge, stated opinions, or turnout in post-election survey and voter data. However, receiving either paper led to more support for the Democratic candidate, suggesting that media slant mattered less in this case than media exposure.” | senses[2] |
| sense | effect of newspapers - measured on four outcomes that came apart: NO effect on political knowledge, stated opinions, or 2005 turnout; an effect on candidate support; and weaker evidence of an effect on 2006 turnout— “We conducted a field experiment to measure the effect of exposure to newspapers on political behavior and opinion. Before the 2005 Virginia gubernatorial election, we randomly assigned individuals to a Washington Post free subscription treatment, a Washington Times free subscription treatment, or a control treatment. We find no effect of… | senses[3] |
| control | households randomly assigned to a third arm that was sent NEITHER newspaper, alongside the Post and Times subscription arms — held — rules out prior political interest and everything else that differs between people who read a paper and people who do not - random assignment makes the untreated arm comparable in expectation, which observational media studies cannot do— “we randomly assigned households to get subscriptions to either the Post or the Times for approximately ten weeks, or to a control group that was not sent either paper” | controls[0] |
| differs in | media slant —distinct-from→ media exposure — WHICH ONE THE EXPERIMENT COULD MOVE THE OUTCOME WITH. Both papers - the conservative Times and the liberal Post - produced more support for the DEMOCRATIC candidate, so the effect cannot be attributed to slant. The design separates the two by giving opposite slants and finding the same direction— “We conducted a field experiment to measure the effect of exposure to newspapers on political behavior and opinion. Before the 2005 Virginia gubernatorial election, we randomly assigned individuals to a Washington Post free subscription treatment, a Washington Times free subscription treatment, or a control treatment. We find no effect of… | concept_edges[0] |
| note | media slant —distinct-from→ media exposure — THE FINDING IS A NULL ON THE VARIABLE THE STUDY WAS DESIGNED AROUND. Slant is what the two-newspaper design exists to test, and it is the one thing that did not matter - 'media slant mattered less in this case than media exposure'.— “We conducted a field experiment to measure the effect of exposure to newspapers on political behavior and opinion. Before the 2005 Virginia gubernatorial election, we randomly assigned individuals to a Washington Post free subscription treatment, a Washington Times free subscription treatment, or a control treatment. We find no effect of… | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | media slant —distinct-from→ media exposure — 0.9— “We conducted a field experiment to measure the effect of exposure to newspapers on political behavior and opinion. Before the 2005 Virginia gubernatorial election, we randomly assigned individuals to a Washington Post free subscription treatment, a Washington Times free subscription treatment, or a control treatment. We find no effect of… | concept_edges[0] |
| audit | newspaper provision —causes→ turnout — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but 'Some evidence ... suggests' increased 2006 turnout; hedged.— “We conducted a field experiment to measure the effect of exposure to newspapers on political behavior and opinion. Before the 2005 Virginia gubernatorial election, we randomly assigned individuals to a Washington Post free subscription treatment, a Washington Times free subscription treatment, or a control treatment. We find no effect of… | concept_edges[1] |
| note | newspaper provision —causes→ turnout — Reported at the weakest grade the paper uses - 'SOME EVIDENCE from voting records ALSO SUGGESTS' - and the record already carries a limitation saying the turnout effect appeared only in 2006 and was of borderline significance.— “We conducted a field experiment to measure the effect of exposure to newspapers on political behavior and opinion. Before the 2005 Virginia gubernatorial election, we randomly assigned individuals to a Washington Post free subscription treatment, a Washington Times free subscription treatment, or a control treatment. We find no effect of… | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | newspaper provision —causes→ turnout — 0.6— “We conducted a field experiment to measure the effect of exposure to newspapers on political behavior and opinion. Before the 2005 Virginia gubernatorial election, we randomly assigned individuals to a Washington Post free subscription treatment, a Washington Times free subscription treatment, or a control treatment. We find no effect of… | concept_edges[1] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| for which use | limitation — the precision of every treatment effect: THE MOST IMPORTANT [limitation] OF WHICH IS THE RELATIVELY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE— “Our study has some important limitations, the most important of which is the relatively small sample size.” | limitations[0] |
| for which use | limitation — the interpretation of the treatment itself: WE KNOW WHICH HOUSEHOLDS RECEIVED NEWSPAPERS, [but] WE CANNOT BE SURE THAT THE NEWSPAPERS WERE READ— “One limitation of this study is that while we know which households received newspapers, we cannot be sure that the… | limitations[1] |
| for which use | limitation — the unbiasedness of the estimates: IF THERE IS ATTRITION BASED ON UNOBSERVED VARIABLES THAT ARE CORRELATED WITH THE OUTCOME MEASURES BUT NOT PREDICTED BY THE OBSERVABLES, OUR RESULTS MAY BE BIASED | limitations[2] |
| for which use | limitation — the population the effect applies to: WE ARE STUDYING INDIVIDUALS WHO DO NOT ALREADY SUBSCRIBE TO A NEWSPAPER, HENCE ARE EXAMINING THE EFFECT OF EXPOSING INDIVIDUALS WHO, ON AVERAGE, ARE LESS EXPOSED TO THE MEDIA THAN THE A[verage] | limitations[3] |
| for which use | limitation — the turnout result specifically: BOTH THE EXISTENCE OF AN EFFECT AND ITS POTENTIAL MECHANISM SHOULD BE TREATED GUARDEDLY UNTIL FURTHER STUDY 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 — reading the estimates as effects of newspaper EXPOSURE: the randomisation assigned delivery, and the authors state they cannot be sure the papers were read 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] |
| for which use | limitation — treating a null result here as evidence of no effect: the authors name the relatively small sample size as their most important limitation, with 1,081 survey interviews and 2,571 merged records 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] |
| for which use | limitation — the randomisation as guaranteeing unbiasedness of these particular estimates: the authors state results may still be biased through unobservables not predicted by the observed covariates 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[7] |
| for which use | limitation — the follow-up survey as covering the assigned sample: 1,081 of the 3,347 individuals were reinterviewed for it 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[8] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | Small sample, so treatment effects are estimated imprecisely. 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 | Delivery was randomised but actual reading could not be verified. 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 | Attrition on unobservables could bias the estimates. 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 sample frame excludes existing subscribers, so the estimated effect applies to an unusually low-media-exposure population. 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 turnout effect appeared only in 2006 and was of borderline significance, so both the effect and its mechanism are held provisional. 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 | What was randomised is delivery, not reading: the authors state they cannot be sure the newspapers were read. 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 authors name small sample size as their most important limitation, with consequences for the standard errors. 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] |
| limitation | The orthogonality claim is conditional: unobservables correlated with the outcome but unpredicted by the observables would still bias the result. 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[7] |
| limitation | Just under a third of the assigned sample supplied the survey outcomes. 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[8] |
| limitation | WHAT WAS RANDOMISED IS DELIVERY, NOT READING, and the authors say so plainly: they know which households received newspapers but cannot be sure the newspapers were read. The treatment the design controls is not the treatment the theory is about, and the gap is bridged by three self-reported survey measures. 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[9] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Ten weeks of a free newspaper subscription had no detectable effect on political knowledge, stated opinions, or turnout in the 2005 election. 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 | Receiving either newspaper increased support for the Democratic candidate, so exposure to news rather than the paper's slant drove the effect. 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 | Receiving the Post raised the probability of voting for the Democrat by 11.2 percentage points among those who voted and by 7.2 percentage points across all respondents. 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 conservative Washington Times also raised the probability of a Democratic vote, contrary to what a slant-based account predicts. 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 | The estimated effects of the two papers cannot be statistically distinguished from one another. 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 | Administrative records show turnout in the 2006 election 2.8 percentage points higher in the treatment groups, an effect of only borderline significance. 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 | Neither newspaper improved respondents' ability to answer factual questions about recent news, individually or in aggregate. 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 | About 17 percent of the Post treatment group had subscribed three months after the free subscription ended. 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 | Randomization succeeded: no baseline characteristic differed significantly across the three groups, the weakest balance being on gender. 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] |
| finding | The study is underpowered for small effects: turnout effects below 3.6 points, Democratic-vote effects below 7 points, and Post-versus-Times differences below 8.6 points could not have been detected. 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[9] |
| quantity | 3,347 — Households that reported taking neither newspaper at baseline and were randomized into the three arms 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 | 1,081 / 2,571 — Post-election survey interviews, and the number of subjects matched to administrative voting records 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 | 11.2 percentage points ( p , 0.014) — Estimated increase in the probability of voting for the Democratic candidate caused by receiving the Washington Post, among those who reported voting 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 | 2.8 percentage point — Higher 2006 turnout in the treatment groups in administrative records, standard error 1.6 points 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 | approximately 17 percent — Share of the Post treatment group that had bought its own subscription three months after the free trial ended 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 | 6 percent — Share of treatment-group households that cancelled the free subscription, kept in the sample under intent to treat 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 | approximately 92 percentage points — Actual increase in Post exposure produced by the treatment, rather than 100 points, because some control and Times households already received the Post on Sundays 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 | 1,081 of 3,347 — individuals reinterviewed for the post-election follow-up survey 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 | 2,571 — sample size for the data merged with administrative voting records, named as a limitation 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 | free subscription treatment (independent) 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[0] |
| variable | voter turnout (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 | strata (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 | survey date (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 | surveyor (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] |
| definition | intent to treat effects 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 | Broad Policy index 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 | Specific Issue Index 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] |
| concept | media slant 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 | field experiment 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 | newspaper provision 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 | media exposure 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 | turnout 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] |
| ordinary least squares regression and probit | as written: probit or ordered probit specifications instead of OLS 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] |
| chi-squared test | as written: chi-squared tests of independence 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] |
| multinomial logit regression | as written: a multinomial logit model 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] |
| standard error | as written: the standard errors of the estimated treatment effects 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] |
| null hypothesis significance test / minimum detectable effect | as written: we fail to reject (two-sided, at the five percent level) the null hypothesis of no effect 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] |
| standardization by standard deviations from the mean | as written: summing the standard deviations from the mean 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] |
| p-value p | as written: The lowest p-value for a test of independence 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] |
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