(cid:NN). The PDF this text was extracted from encodes 29 characters in a way that names no letter, so the extractor could not say what they were. The quotes keep them because a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing — the marks are the source’s, not the tagging’s.phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | unconscious priming under continuous flash suppression— “Here we tested the hypothesis that the potentially dorsal-stream-based analysis of prime-stimulus elongation during CFS affects the categorization of manipulable target objects.” | |
| claim-type | null-result— “In two behavioral experiments, we found evidence for priming in a shape task, but none for priming in a category task, when prime stimuli were rendered invisible using CFS.” | |
| method — evidence | — “We determined sample size based on a recent study by Almeida et al. (2014).” | |
| mechanism | The task set tunes unconscious processing: a category task desensitizes the pathways coding prime elongation while a shape task, needing only attention to basic visual features, sensitizes them and so lets the priming effect emerge— “Speculatively, the category task might have desensitized perceptual pathways related to the processing of prime elongation and thus diminished category-by-shape priming; by contrast, the shape task—requiring only attention to basic visual features—sensitized perceptual pathways and boosted category-by-shape priming.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Attentional sensitization by task set raises the sensitivity of task-relevant pathways and lowers that of task-irrelevant ones, which is the process offered for why priming appears in one task and not the other— “According to this model, attentional sensitization of unconscious processing by task sets is achieved by enhancing the sensitivity of task-relevant pathways and reducing the sensitivity of task-irrelevant pathways (Kiefer & Martens, 2010).” | mechanisms[1] |
| contradicts | Almeida et al. (2014) elongation-based category priming— “As in Experiment 1, we found no evidence supporting the notion of elongation-based unconscious priming in a category task, as proposed by Almeida et al. (2014).” | claim_relations[0] |
| contradicts | Almeida et al. (2008), Almeida et al. (2010) and Sakuraba et al. (2012) tool-priming effects— “In contrast to previous CFS studies (Almeida et al., 2008; Almeida et al., 2010; Sakuraba et al., 2012), we observed no priming effects in the tool-versus-animal categorization task.” | claim_relations[1] |
| builds-on | Gayet et al. (2014) feature-level account of interocular suppression— “From a broader perspective, our finding that prime shape can escape CFS suppression and affect subsequent manual responses to target stimuli appears to support the notion that interocularly suppressed stimuli are processed at the level of features and coarse feature configurations (Gayet et al., 2014).” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | A NULL AND AN EFFECT IN ONE SENTENCE, WHICH IS WHY THE NULL CANNOT BE DISMISSED: `we found evidence for priming in a shape task, but none for priming in a category task, when prime stimuli were rendered invisible using CFS.` The corpus's second powered priming null after bamberger2024, and a stronger one - there the whole result was a null and the authors had to name reasons the manipulation might have failed. Here the null is HALF OF A WITHIN-PAPER CONTRAST: same primes, same suppression, same subjects, and the other task showed the effect. A failed manipulation cannot produce that— “In two behavioral experiments, we found evidence for priming in a shape task, but none for priming in a category task, when prime stimuli were rendered invisible using CFS. Our results thus support” | senses[0] |
| sense | AND THE CONCLUSION IS A RESTRICTION ON A METHOD THE FIELD HAS BEEN EXPANDING: `Our results thus support the notion that the representation of CF-suppressed stimuli is more limited than previously thought.` The introduction records that CFS has been called a `game changer` for its `seemingly unlimited potential to present various kinds of visual stimuli unconsciously`. This paper is the counter-pressure, and the corpus should hold the claim and its limit together rather than one of them— “Our results thus support the notion that the representation of CF-suppressed stimuli is more limited than previously thought” | senses[1] |
| sense | AND THEY DECLINE TO OVER-READ THE POSITIVE HALF, WHICH IS RARER THAN REPORTING THE NULL: `This pattern of results is difficult to reconcile with a simple priming model based on shape congruency alone, and it merits further exploration.` The effect they DID find does not fit the obvious account. Most records in this corpus defend their surviving result; this one reports that its own is unexplained - which is what makes the null beside it credible— “This pattern of results is difficult to reconcile with a simple priming model based on shape congruency alone, and it merits further exploration” | senses[2] |
| sense | AND THE MECHANISM OFFERED IS MARKED AS SPECULATION INSIDE ITS OWN SENTENCE: `SPECULATIVELY, the category task might have DESENSITIZED perceptual pathways related to the processing of prime elongation and thus diminished category-by-shape priming; by contrast, the shape task - requiring only attention to basic visual features - SENSITIZED perceptual pathways.` Attentional sensitization as a TASK-SET effect (Kiefer 2012). If it holds, every masked-priming null in the literature is conditional on the task used to measure it - which would make the measurement instrument part of the phenomenon, and is the strongest version of what this corpus keeps finding one record at a time— “Speculatively, the category task might have desensitized perceptual pathways related to the processing of prime elongation and thus diminished category-by-shape priming; by contrast, the shape task—requiring only attention to basic visual features—sensitized perceptual pathways and boosted category-by-shape priming” | senses[3] |
| control | a forced-choice discrimination test on the invisible stimuli, with FOUR PARTICIPANTS EXCLUDED for performing above chance — held — rules out that the stimuli were not actually invisible - a priming effect claimed as unconscious when those subjects could in fact see the prime— “Four participants were excluded from further analyses because they showed significant above-chance forcedchoice discrimination performance for invisible stimuli in the first control experiment.” | controls[0] |
| control | the assignment of response keys was counterbalanced across participants — held — rules out that the effect is a motor or hand preference rather than a categorisation effect— “Each block started with an instruction screen illustrating the assignments of the response keys, which were counterbalanced across participants.” | controls[1] |
| effect direction | CFS —causes→ priming — no-change— “In two behavioral experiments, we found evidence for priming in a shape task, but none for priming in a category task, when prime stimuli were rendered invisible using CFS. Our results thus support”— “but none for priming in a category task” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | CFS —causes→ priming — 'no-change' ON THE CATEGORY TASK, AND THE SHAPE TASK IS THE CONTROL THAT MAKES IT MEAN SOMETHING. The same quote carries both halves: priming survives suppression in one task and not the other. Recording only the surviving half would say CFS leaves priming intact; recording only the null would say it abolishes it; both are wrong and the sentence says so. The measure-construct ambiguity does not arise - the measured quantity and the construct move together - but the direction gap does: the direction is conditioned on the task, and there is no way to say that on an edge. Weight 0.9.— “In two behavioral experiments, we found evidence for priming in a shape task, but none for priming in a category task, when prime stimuli were rendered invisible using CFS. Our results thus support” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | CFS —causes→ priming — 0.9— “In two behavioral experiments, we found evidence for priming in a shape task, but none for priming in a category task, when prime stimuli were rendered invisible using CFS. Our results thus support” | concept_edges[0] |
| note | shape task —contrasted-with→ category task — THE CONTRAST IS THE RESULT. Not two tasks compared for their own sake - the difference between them IS the finding, because it is what turns a null into evidence about the level of representation that survives suppression rather than evidence about the experiment. Weight 0.95: explicit in the quote and it is the paper's title.— “In two behavioral experiments, we found evidence for priming in a shape task, but none for priming in a category task, when prime stimuli were rendered invisible using CFS. Our results thus support” | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | shape task —contrasted-with→ category task — 0.95— “In two behavioral experiments, we found evidence for priming in a shape task, but none for priming in a category task, when prime stimuli were rendered invisible using CFS. Our results thus support” | concept_edges[1] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[1] |
| evidential status | mechanism — the paper's own words: Speculative— “Speculatively, the category task might have desensitized perceptual pathways related to the processing of prime elongation and thus diminished category-by-shape priming; by contrast, the shape task—requiring only attention to basic visual features—sensitized perceptual pathways and boosted category-by-shape priming.” | mechanisms[0] |
| replication | failed | |
| limitation | The width/length ratio distribution differed across categories and was not modelled as a random effect, so it may have driven the shape-task priming.— “One might conclude that priming effects in the shape task could also have been modulated by the width/length ratio, which was not modeled as a random effect in the statistical analysis.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | Primes also appeared as visible targets, so stimulus-response mapping cannot be excluded as an explanation of the priming effects.— “Finally, in our experiments suppressed prime stimuli were also presented as fully visible target stimuli; thus it cannot be excluded that the observed priming effects might reflect consequences of stimulus-response mappings that can act at several levels (classification, decision, action) and potentially lead to facilitating and reverse RT… | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The null result may partly reflect sampling and low statistical power.— “First, this failure to reproduce previous results may be due to random sampling (Francis, 2013)” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | How low- and high-level information modulates the shape-task priming effect is unresolved.— “The degree to which the priming effect in the shape task can be modulated by other low-level (e.g., stimulus orientation) and high-level (e.g., target category) information awaits further investigation.” | limitations[3] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | In Experiment 1 neither elongated tool primes nor elongated animal primes speeded categorization of elongated tool targets relative to nonelongated animal primes; the 5 ms and 4 ms differences ran in the predicted direction but were not significant.— “While the observed RT differences were numerically in the predicted direction (5 and 4 ms, i.e., facilitatory), they were not significant (one-sided paired t tests), t(22) = 0.56, p = 0.290, and t(22) = 0.52, p = 0.305.” | content_tags.findings[0] |
| evidence status note | finding — THE MATHS LAYER OF THE STAGED TEXT WAS MOJIBAKE AND HAS BEEN REPAIRED. This paper's extraction rendered '=' as U+00BC (the vulgar fraction one quarter) and '+' as U+00FE (thorn), so the quote read 'p ¼ 0.01' where the paper says 'p = 0.01'. It passed every check we own, because the staged text said the same wrong thing: the offsets were right and the recorded hash of the staged text matched. Repaired only where the character stands in an operator's place - spaced, with a number after it - because the same U+00BC is a REAL QUARTER in six other papers ('a ¼ inch condenser microphone'). Original in evidence as extracted, pre-repair file in an internal file. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | In Experiment 2 the category task again showed no elongation-based priming, and this time the reaction-time differences ran opposite to the predicted direction.— “The observed RT differences were not in the predicted direction and not significant (one-sided paired t tests), t(26) ¼ (cid:3)0.01, p = 0.498, and t(26) ¼ (cid:3)0.82, p = 0.209.” | content_tags.findings[1] |
| evidence status note | finding — THE MATHS LAYER OF THE STAGED TEXT WAS MOJIBAKE AND HAS BEEN REPAIRED. This paper's extraction rendered '=' as U+00BC (the vulgar fraction one quarter) and '+' as U+00FE (thorn), so the quote read 'p ¼ 0.01' where the paper says 'p = 0.01'. It passed every check we own, because the staged text said the same wrong thing: the offsets were right and the recorded hash of the staged text matched. Repaired only where the character stands in an operator's place - spaced, with a number after it - because the same U+00BC is a REAL QUARTER in six other papers ('a ¼ inch condenser microphone'). Original in evidence as extracted, pre-repair file in an internal file. Correction, 18 September 2026: the '¼' in this quote was NOT repaired, because the minus sign after it did not survive extraction and prints as '(cid:3)': 't(26) ¼ (cid:3)0.01' is t(26) = −0.01, and 't(26) ¼ (cid:3)0.82' is t(26) = −0.82. (Read from the sentence; we hold no PDF of this paper.) | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | With the same stimuli and the same observers, a shape-discrimination task did produce priming: shape-congruent primes speeded responses to elongated tool targets, with a reversed and less robust difference for nonelongated tool targets.— “We found facilitatory priming by shape-congruent versus shape-incongruent primes for elongated tool targets, and a reversed (albeit not robust) RT difference for nonelongated tool targets.” | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | Across both experiments there is no support for unconscious category-by-shape priming under CFS, but suppressed prime shape does affect shape discrimination of tool targets.— “In two experiments, we found no evidence in support of the hypothesis that elongated prime stimuli, unconsciously presented under CFS, facilitate the… | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | The primes were genuinely invisible: forced-choice category discrimination of primes rated invisible was at chance level, 48.87% in Experiment 1. | content_tags.findings[4] |
| evidence status note | finding — THE MATHS LAYER OF THE STAGED TEXT WAS MOJIBAKE AND HAS BEEN REPAIRED. This paper's extraction rendered '=' as U+00BC (the vulgar fraction one quarter) and '+' as U+00FE (thorn), so the quote read 'p ¼ 0.01' where the paper says 'p = 0.01'. It passed every check we own, because the staged text said the same wrong thing: the offsets were right and the recorded hash of the staged text matched. Repaired only where the character stands in an operator's place - spaced, with a number after it - because the same U+00BC is a REAL QUARTER in six other papers ('a ¼ inch condenser microphone'). Original in evidence as extracted, pre-repair file in an internal file. Correction, 18 September 2026: the '¼' in this quote was NOT repaired, because the minus sign after it did not survive extraction and prints as '(cid:3)': 't(22) ¼ (cid:3)1.41' is t(22) = −1.41. (Read from the sentence; we hold no PDF of this paper.) | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | Correlations between prime-target orientation difference and reaction time were slightly larger for tool than for animal targets (p = 0.043). | content_tags.findings[5] |
| evidence status note | finding — THE MATHS LAYER OF THE STAGED TEXT WAS MOJIBAKE AND HAS BEEN REPAIRED. This paper's extraction rendered '=' as U+00BC (the vulgar fraction one quarter) and '+' as U+00FE (thorn), so the quote read 'p ¼ 0.01' where the paper says 'p = 0.01'. It passed every check we own, because the staged text said the same wrong thing: the offsets were right and the recorded hash of the staged text matched. Repaired only where the character stands in an operator's place - spaced, with a number after it - because the same U+00BC is a REAL QUARTER in six other papers ('a ¼ inch condenser microphone'). Original in evidence as extracted, pre-repair file in an internal file. Correction, 18 September 2026: the '¼' in this quote was NOT repaired, because the minus sign after it did not survive extraction and prints as '(cid:3)': 'r ¼(cid:3)0.042' is r = −0.042. (The same printed character is a minus sign in this paper's other sentences, where the sense requires one; we hold no PDF of this paper.) | content_tags.findings[5] |
| finding | The pattern is read as evidence that stimuli suppressed by CFS are represented only as features and coarse feature configurations, not at a category or semantic level. | content_tags.findings[6] |
| finding | Participants may have performed a shape discrimination (elongated vs nonelongated) rather than the instructed category discrimination. 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] |
| quantity | N = 23 — Participants retained in Experiment 1 after exclusions 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 | N = 27 — Participants retained in Experiment 2 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 | 640 trials — Total trials per participant in the Experiment 1 main session, 32 per condition 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 | 0.27 ± 0.03 — Michelson contrast of the suppressed primes in Experiment 1, mean and SEM 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] |
| value source note | quantity — The value is written with the paper's own symbol (±). Our copy of the text prints it as a '6' ('0.27 6 0.03 (mean 6 SEM)'), because the maths characters in the source file were mis-mapped when the text was extracted. We hold no PDF of this paper: the ± is read from the sentence itself, which gives the figure as a mean and its standard error ('mean 6 SEM'). | content_tags.quantities[3] |
| quantity | 11 and −12 ms — Size of the facilitatory and the reversed shape-priming effects in the shape task 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] |
| evidence status note | quantity — DAMAGED GLYPHS IN THIS QUOTE: (cid:3). These are raw PDF font glyph indices that leaked out in place of the characters they stand for - usually a mathematical operator. The quote is verbatim to the staged text and its anchor is sound; the STAGED TEXT is what is damaged. NOT repaired: the cid-to-character mapping is defined by the font embedded in that particular PDF, so guessing it would produce a clean and unverifiable quote. Repair needs the source PDF and is a re-staging job. | content_tags.quantities[4] |
| value source note | quantity — The value is written with a minus sign. Our copy of the text prints '(cid:3)' ('11 and (cid:3)12 ms'). We hold no PDF of this paper, and the character alone does not settle the sign: the same printed character is a minus in this paper's other sentences where the sense requires one, and an earlier sentence in the same paragraph names the two effects as a facilitatory one and 'a reversed (albeit not robust) RT difference' - so the second figure is the reversed, negative one. | content_tags.quantities[4] |
| quantity | 7.58% — Share of correct trials discarded as reaction-time outliers under the interquartile-range rule in Experiment 1 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 | 48% — Proportion of participants excluded on awareness checks in the study being replicated, against 15% and 7% in these two experiments 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 | N = 22 — Sample size the a priori power analysis called for, at dz = 0.55 and 80% 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. | content_tags.quantities[7] |
| evidence status note | quantity — THE MATHS LAYER OF THE STAGED TEXT WAS MOJIBAKE AND HAS BEEN REPAIRED. This paper's extraction rendered '=' as U+00BC (the vulgar fraction one quarter) and '+' as U+00FE (thorn), so the quote read 'p ¼ 0.01' where the paper says 'p = 0.01'. It passed every check we own, because the staged text said the same wrong thing: the offsets were right and the recorded hash of the staged text matched. Repaired only where the character stands in an operator's place - spaced, with a number after it - because the same U+00BC is a REAL QUARTER in six other papers ('a ¼ inch condenser microphone'). Original in evidence as extracted, pre-repair file in an internal file. | content_tags.quantities[7] |
| variable | task instruction (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 | subjective visibility rating (dependent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[3] |
| variable | prime contrast (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[4] |
| variable | low-level image properties (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 | target elongation (moderator) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[6] |
| definition | continuous flash suppression (CFS) 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 | dorsal CFS bias 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 | elongated stimuli Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| evidence status note | definition — RULED, NOT PREVIOUSLY ADJUDICATED. This quote carries an unmapped font glyph and was not covered by the 2026-08-25 ruling, which reached only rows flagged with glyph damage. The same reasoning applies and the same decision follows: THE QUOTE IS NOT EDITED. The unmapped characters are the ones carrying the claim, and no code-to-character table is possible - in one sentence of this corpus the same code is '=' once and 'tau' twice. Repair needs the source PDF and is a re-staging job, costed and refused (0 of 114 appendable; a per-record re-stage fixes 21 and breaks 223). Three sibling rows were found ALREADY ruled under this same pass and are untouched. | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| definition | nonelongated stimuli Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[4] |
| evidence status note | definition — RULED, NOT PREVIOUSLY ADJUDICATED. This quote carries an unmapped font glyph and was not covered by the 2026-08-25 ruling, which reached only rows flagged with glyph damage. The same reasoning applies and the same decision follows: THE QUOTE IS NOT EDITED. The unmapped characters are the ones carrying the claim, and no code-to-character table is possible - in one sentence of this corpus the same code is '=' once and 'tau' twice. Repair needs the source PDF and is a re-staging job, costed and refused (0 of 114 appendable; a per-record re-stage fixes 21 and breaks 223). Three sibling rows were found ALREADY ruled under this same pass and are untouched. | content_tags.definitions[4] |
| concept | CFS — not defined in this paper's own words; continuous flash suppression - high-contrast dynamic masks flashed to one eye to suppress perception of an image shown to the other. Its selling point is duration and control: seconds of suppression with near-deterministic onset, where masking buys milliseconds 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 | shape task — not defined in this paper's own words; discriminating elongated from non-elongated tool targets - and the task where priming SURVIVES suppression. The authors' own reading is that it requires 'only attention to basic visual features' 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 | category task — not defined in this paper's own words; categorising manipulable objects - and the task where priming does NOT survive. This is the task Almeida's dorsal-stream hypothesis predicted would show the effect, which is why the null is the paper's result rather than a failure 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 | priming — not defined in this paper's own words; here the question is not whether it occurs but AT WHAT LEVEL: shape yes, category no, under the same suppression. The phenomenon becomes a probe for how much survives invisibility rather than a thing to be demonstrated 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] |
| repeated-measures ANOVA F | 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] |
| t-test t | as written: paired t tests 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] |
| power analysis | as written: achieve a power of 0.80 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| evidence status note | power analysis — THE MATHS LAYER OF THE STAGED TEXT WAS MOJIBAKE AND HAS BEEN REPAIRED. This paper's extraction rendered '=' as U+00BC (the vulgar fraction one quarter) and '+' as U+00FE (thorn), so the quote read 'p ¼ 0.01' where the paper says 'p = 0.01'. It passed every check we own, because the staged text said the same wrong thing: the offsets were right and the recorded hash of the staged text matched. Repaired only where the character stands in an operator's place - spaced, with a number after it - because the same U+00BC is a REAL QUARTER in six other papers ('a ¼ inch condenser microphone'). Original in evidence as extracted, pre-repair file in an internal file. | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| effect size dz | as written: the associated effect sizes based on the mean and standard deviation of difference 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] |
| evidence status note | effect size — THE MATHS LAYER OF THE STAGED TEXT WAS MOJIBAKE AND HAS BEEN REPAIRED. This paper's extraction rendered '=' as U+00BC (the vulgar fraction one quarter) and '+' as U+00FE (thorn), so the quote read 'p ¼ 0.01' where the paper says 'p = 0.01'. It passed every check we own, because the staged text said the same wrong thing: the offsets were right and the recorded hash of the staged text matched. Repaired only where the character stands in an operator's place - spaced, with a number after it - because the same U+00BC is a REAL QUARTER in six other papers ('a ¼ inch condenser microphone'). Original in evidence as extracted, pre-repair file in an internal file. | content_tags.statistics[3] |
| binomial test | as written: submitted to binomial tests 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] |
| evidence status note | binomial test — THE MATHS LAYER OF THE STAGED TEXT WAS MOJIBAKE AND HAS BEEN REPAIRED. This paper's extraction rendered '=' as U+00BC (the vulgar fraction one quarter) and '+' as U+00FE (thorn), so the quote read 'p ¼ 0.01' where the paper says 'p = 0.01'. It passed every check we own, because the staged text said the same wrong thing: the offsets were right and the recorded hash of the staged text matched. Repaired only where the character stands in an operator's place - spaced, with a number after it - because the same U+00BC is a REAL QUARTER in six other papers ('a ¼ inch condenser microphone'). Original in evidence as extracted, pre-repair file in an internal file. | content_tags.statistics[4] |
| correlation r | as written: Pearson correlation coefficients 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] |
| interquartile range (outlier rule) | as written: 1.5 interquartile ranges above the third quartile or below the first quartile Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[6] |
| standard deviation SD | as written: more than three standard deviations above or below 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[7] |
| standard error of the mean SEM | as written: mean 6 SEM 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[8] |
| evidence status note | standard error of the mean — THE MATHS LAYER OF THE STAGED TEXT WAS MOJIBAKE AND HAS BEEN REPAIRED. This paper's extraction rendered '=' as U+00BC (the vulgar fraction one quarter) and '+' as U+00FE (thorn), so the quote read 'p ¼ 0.01' where the paper says 'p = 0.01'. It passed every check we own, because the staged text said the same wrong thing: the offsets were right and the recorded hash of the staged text matched. Repaired only where the character stands in an operator's place - spaced, with a number after it - because the same U+00BC is a REAL QUARTER in six other papers ('a ¼ inch condenser microphone'). Original in evidence as extracted, pre-repair file in an internal file. Correction, 18 September 2026: only '=' and '+' were repaired. In this quote the '6' in 'mean 6 SEM' is ± (mean ± SEM) and still prints wrongly. | content_tags.statistics[8] |
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