phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | a normative vocabulary assembled by many bodies at once, whose commonest terms turn out to be the ones with engineering solutions— “Especially the aspects of accountability, privacy or fairness appear altogether in about 80% of all guidelines and seem to provide the minimal requirements for building and using an “ethically sound” AI system. What is striking here is the fact that the most frequently mentioned aspects are those for which technical fixes can be or have… | |
| claim-type | critique— “However, the critical question arises: Do those ethical guidelines have an actual impact on human decision-making in the field of AI and machine learning? The short answer is: No, most often not.” | |
| method — evidence | — “Designed as a semi-systematic evaluation, this paper analyzes and compares 22 guidelines, highlighting overlaps but also omissions. As a result, I give a detailed overview of the field of AI ethics. Finally, I also examine to what extent the respective ethical principles and values are implemented in the practice of research, development and… | |
| object of study — evidence | — “Designed as a semi-systematic evaluation, this paper analyzes and compares 22 guidelines, highlighting overlaps but also omissions. As a result, I give a detailed overview of the field of AI ethics. Finally, I also examine to what extent the respective ethical principles and values are implemented in the practice of research, development and… | |
| research question — evidence | — “However, the critical question arises: Do those ethical guidelines have an actual impact on human decision-making in the field of AI and machine learning? The short answer is: No, most often not.” | |
| contribution — evidence | — “Second, not all omissions can be treated equally. There are omissions which are missing or severely underrepresented without any good reason—for instance the aspect of political abuse or “hidden” social and ecological costs of AI systems—, and omissions that can be justified” | |
| transfer | from evidence synthesis: systematic-review methodology from evidence-based medicine, applied semi-systematically to normative documents rather than to trials— “Designed as a semi-systematic evaluation, this paper analyzes and compares 22 guidelines, highlighting overlaps but also omissions. As a result, I give a detailed overview of the field of AI ethics. Finally, I also examine to what extent the respective ethical principles and values are implemented in the practice of research, development and… | transfers[0] |
| mechanism | the vocabulary is shaped by what is solvable accountability, privacy and fairness appear in about 80% of the guidelines, and the author's observation is that these are exactly the aspects for which technical fixes exist or are being built. A NORMATIVE VOCABULARY SELECTED BY TRACTABILITY: what can be engineered gets written down, and what cannot - political abuse, ecological cost, democratic erosion - does not— “Especially the aspects of accountability, privacy or fairness appear altogether in about 80% of all guidelines and seem to provide the minimal requirements for building and using an “ethically sound” AI system. What is striking here is the fact that the most frequently mentioned aspects are those for which technical fixes can be or have… | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | the sample decides the absence list excluding robot ethics guidelines means the list of issues lacks robotics issues. The author states this BEFORE reporting the omissions, so every absence in the paper is already qualified by the selection that produced it - which is the discipline a negative finding needs and almost never gets— “First, the sampling method used to select the AI ethics guidelines has an effect on the list of issues and omissions. When deliberately excluding for instance robot ethics guidelines, this has the effect that the list of entries lacks issues that are connected with robotics.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | two kinds of absence an issue can be missing without any good reason - political abuse, hidden social and ecological costs - or missing for a reason that can be stated. The author refuses to count them together, which turns a list of gaps into two different claims— “Second, not all omissions can be treated equally. There are omissions which are missing or severely underrepresented without any good reason—for instance the aspect of political abuse or “hidden” social and ecological costs of AI systems—, and omissions that can be justified” | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | a coding rule with its exception printed a marker goes in only where an issue is explicitly discussed in one or more paragraphs - unless the guideline is so short that it is nothing but brief mentions, in which case brief mentions count. THE EXCEPTION IS WHERE THE MEASUREMENT WOULD OTHERWISE PENALISE BREVITY RATHER THAN SILENCE— “In Table 1, I only inserted green markers if the corresponding issues were explicitly discussed in one or more paragraphs. Isolated mentions without further explanations were not considered, unless the analyzed guideline is so short that it consists entirely of brief mentions altogether.” | mechanisms[3] |
| mechanism | ethics as a substitute for law industry guidelines suggest to legislators that self-governance suffices and no specific laws are needed. So the existence of an ethical vocabulary is itself an argument against a binding one - the guidelines are not only a record of values, they are an intervention in whether values become rules— “Ethics guidelines of the AI industry serve to suggest to legislators that internal self-governance in science and industry is sufficient, and that no specific laws are necessary to mitigate possible technological risks and to eliminate scenarios of abuse (Calo 2017).” | mechanisms[4] |
| critiques | the AI ethics guidelines themselves, on the grounds that they lack any mechanism to reinforce their own normative claims— “AI ethics—or ethics in general—lacks mechanisms to reinforce its own normative claims.” | claim_relations[0] |
| critiques | industry self-governance, as a device for suggesting to legislators that no specific laws are necessary— “Ethics guidelines of the AI industry serve to suggest to legislators that internal self-governance in science and industry is sufficient, and that no specific laws are necessary to mitigate possible technological risks and to eliminate scenarios of abuse (Calo 2017).” | claim_relations[1] |
| critiques | the guidelines' exclusive use of the term AI, which is a collective term for a wide range of technologies and lets every document avoid technical detail— “The ethics guidelines examined refer exclusively to the term “AI”. They never or very seldom use more specific terminology. However, “AI” is just a collective term for a wide range of technologies or an abstract large-scale phenomenon.” | claim_relations[2] |
| qualifies | its own omissions list, by stating that the sampling method produced it and that the selection is western, northern and English-language— “First, the sampling method used to select the AI ethics guidelines has an effect on the list of issues and omissions. When deliberately excluding for instance robot ethics guidelines, this has the effect that the list of entries lacks issues that are connected with robotics.” | claim_relations[3] |
| sense | an omission - UNJUSTIFIED: missing or severely underrepresented without any good reason, such as political abuse or the hidden social and ecological costs of AI— “Second, not all omissions can be treated equally. There are omissions which are missing or severely underrepresented without any good reason—for instance the aspect of political abuse or “hidden” social and ecological costs of AI systems—, and omissions that can be justified” | senses[0] |
| sense | an omission - JUSTIFIED: absent for a reason the analysis can state, which the author separates out rather than counting alongside the first— “Second, not all omissions can be treated equally. There are omissions which are missing or severely underrepresented without any good reason—for instance the aspect of political abuse or “hidden” social and ecological costs of AI systems—, and omissions that can be justified” | senses[1] |
| sense | an issue covered - AS CODED: explicitly discussed in one or more paragraphs, with isolated mentions not counted— “In Table 1, I only inserted green markers if the corresponding issues were explicitly discussed in one or more paragraphs. Isolated mentions without further explanations were not considered, unless the analyzed guideline is so short that it consists entirely of brief mentions altogether.” | senses[2] |
| sense | an issue covered - THE EXCEPTION TO THE CODING: unless the guideline is so short that it consists entirely of brief mentions, in which case brief mentions count— “In Table 1, I only inserted green markers if the corresponding issues were explicitly discussed in one or more paragraphs. Isolated mentions without further explanations were not considered, unless the analyzed guideline is so short that it consists entirely of brief mentions altogether.” | senses[3] |
| sense | `AI` - AS USED IN THE GUIDELINES: the only term they use, referred to exclusively and almost never replaced by more specific terminology— “The ethics guidelines examined refer exclusively to the term “AI”. They never or very seldom use more specific terminology. However… | senses[4] |
| sense | `AI` - AS THE AUTHOR READS IT: a collective term for a wide range of technologies, or an abstract large-scale phenomenon - which is why no guideline goes into technical detail | senses[5] |
| control | a stated marking criterion - explicit discussion in one or more paragraphs - applied before any tally, with the exception for guidelines that are entirely brief mentions — held 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. — rules out a word-count masquerading as coverage; a guideline that names privacy once does not score the same as one that discusses 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. | controls[0] |
| control | the effect of the sampling method on the omissions list, stated in the same section as the omissions — held 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. — rules out an absence being read as a property of the field when it is a property of the sample - the robotics example is given as the worked case 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. | controls[1] |
| control | omissions sorted into those without any good reason and those that can be justified, rather than counted as one figure — held 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. — rules out a gap count in which a deliberate scope decision and a genuine blind spot are the same number 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. | controls[2] |
| control | selection criterion declared as the discernible intention of comprehensive mapping rather than depth of detail — held 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. — rules out the longest documents dominating the sample, which would make coverage a function of document length 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. | controls[3] |
| control | the author's own selection bias towards western, northern and English-language documents, named as a shortcoming — absent-declared-unreported — rules out guidelines from outside the western, northern, English-language world - the author names the bias in his own corpus and does not correct 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. | controls[4] |
| weight | the AI ethics guidelines themselves, on the grounds that they lack any mechanism to reinforce their own normative claims — 0.95 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. | claim_relations[0] |
| weight | industry self-governance, as a device for suggesting to legislators that no specific laws are necessary — 0.95 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. | claim_relations[1] |
| weight | the guidelines' exclusive use of the term AI, which is a collective term for a wide range of technologies and lets every document avoid technical detail — 0.95 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. | claim_relations[2] |
| weight | its own omissions list, by stating that the sampling method produced it and that the selection is western, northern and English-language — 0.95 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. | claim_relations[3] |
| audit | green markers —distinct-from→ Isolated mentions — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span explains which issues got a green marker; distinct-from is loose. 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. | concept_edges[0] |
| differs in (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | green markers —distinct-from→ Isolated mentions — whether the issue was discussed or merely named | concept_edges[0] |
| relation | green markers —distinct-from→ Isolated mentions — an issue counts as covered only where it is explicitly discussed in one or more paragraphs; a bare mention does not - unless the whole guideline is bare mentions 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. | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | green markers —distinct-from→ Isolated mentions — 0.95 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. | concept_edges[0] |
| differs in (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | AI ethics —distinct-from→ big data — which technology the document is about, which is the boundary the selection drew | concept_edges[1] |
| evidence status note | AI ethics —distinct-from→ big data — PAGE FURNITURE IS SPLICED INTO THE 'evidence' QUOTE - the publisher's page mark, a page number and the author running head: '1 3 102 T. Hagendorff'. The words on either side of it were never continuous on the page; read the quote with it deleted. PAGE FURNITURE IS SPLICED INTO THE relation evidence QUOTE - the publisher's page mark, a page number and the author running head: '1 3 102 T. Hagendorff'. The words on either side of it were never continuous on the page; read the quote with it deleted. 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. | concept_edges[1] |
| relation | AI ethics —distinct-from→ big data — documents about big data, algorithms or robotics were excluded from the sample even where they are ethics documents, so the issues peculiar to them are absent from the list by construction 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. | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | AI ethics —distinct-from→ big data — 0.95 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. | concept_edges[1] |
| evidence status note | concept — PAGE FURNITURE IS SPLICED INTO THE 'evidence' QUOTE - the publisher's page mark, a page number and the author running head: '1 3 102 T. Hagendorff'. The words on either side of it were never continuous on the page; read the quote with it deleted. 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] |
| evidence status note | concept — PAGE FURNITURE IS SPLICED INTO THE 'evidence' QUOTE - the publisher's page mark, a page number and the author running head: '1 3 102 T. Hagendorff'. The words on either side of it were never continuous on the page; read the quote with it deleted. 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] |
| evidence status note | concept — PAGE FURNITURE IS SPLICED INTO THE 'evidence' QUOTE - the publisher's page mark, the title running head and a page number: '1 3 The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines 105'. The words on either side of it were never continuous on the page; read the quote with it deleted. 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[10] |
| outcome | control — held 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. | controls[0] |
| outcome | control — held 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. | controls[1] |
| outcome | control — held 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. | controls[2] |
| outcome | control — held 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. | controls[3] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — absent-declared-unreported 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. | controls[4] |
| evidence status note | limitation — PAGE FURNITURE IS SPLICED INTO THE 'evidence' QUOTE - the publisher's page mark, a page number and the author running head: '1 3 102 T. Hagendorff'. The words on either side of it were never continuous on the page; read the quote with it deleted. 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 sampling method has an effect on the list of issues and omissions - excluding robot ethics guidelines removes robotics issues from 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[0] |
| limitation | the selection is biased towards western and northern documents and excludes guidelines not written in English 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 | the evaluation is semi-systematic rather than a full analysis of every available soft-law or non-legal norm document 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 | documents about big data, algorithms or robotics, and papers on single aspects of AI ethics, were excluded 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 overview of missing issues is stated as non-exhaustive 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] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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] |
| evidence status note | finding — PAGE FURNITURE IS SPLICED INTO THE 'evidence' QUOTE - the publisher's page mark, the title running head and a page number: '1 3 The Ethics of AI Ethics: An Evaluation of Guidelines 105'. The words on either side of it were never continuous on the page; read the quote with it deleted. | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | AI ethics guidelines analysed and compared 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 | of all guidelines mention accountability, privacy or fairness - the three aspects with technical fixes 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] |
| variable | omissions 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 | sampling 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.variables[1] |
| definition | omissions 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 | green markers 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] |
| concept | omissions — not defined in this paper's own words; what the guidelines do not mention - counted here as a finding in its own right, and divided into those with no good reason and those that can be justified 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 | sampling method — not defined in this paper's own words; how the 22 guidelines were chosen - stated by the author to have an effect on the list of issues and omissions, before the list is reported 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 | political abuse — not defined in this paper's own words; automated propaganda, bots, fake news, deepfakes, micro targeting, election fraud - named as an unjustified omission from nearly every guideline 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 | technical fixes — not defined in this paper's own words; engineering solutions - and the property that the three most frequently mentioned ethical aspects turn out to share 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 | accountability — not defined in this paper's own words; one of the three aspects in about 80% of guidelines, and one of the three for which technical work already exists 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 | green markers — not defined in this paper's own words; the coding decision - inserted only where an issue is explicitly discussed in one or more paragraphs, which is what makes the table a measurement rather than a word count 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 | Isolated mentions — not defined in this paper's own words; a term named without explanation - excluded from the coding, except in guidelines that consist of nothing else 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 | AI ethics — not defined in this paper's own words; the category the selection is drawn from, bounded by excluding documents about big data, algorithms or robotics and papers on single aspects 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 | big data — not defined in this paper's own words; one of the neighbouring categories excluded from the sample, and therefore one whose issues are absent from the resulting list by construction 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] |
| concept | depth of detail — not defined in this paper's own words; explicitly NOT the selection criterion - what mattered was the discernible intention of a comprehensive mapping 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[9] |
| concept | machine consciousness — not defined in this paper's own words; omitted from all 22 guidelines - an absence the author records with a reason attached rather than as a gap 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[10] |
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