phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | mouse posterior parietal cortex delineation and connectivity— “Although recent years have seen a considerable rise in the use of rodents, particularly mice, to investigate PPC and related networks, a coherent anatomical definition of PPC in the mouse is still lacking.” | |
| claim-type | method— “The two major aims of this study were therefore (i) to provide a resource for identifying mouse PPC with anatomical criteria that are evident using ubiquitous staining methods, such as a Nissl stain, and (ii) to define where PPC falls in relation to extrastriate areas around V1.” | |
| method — evidence | — “Additionally, we performed bilateral triple anterograde tracer injections in primary visual cortex (V1) and prepared flattened tangential sections from one hemisphere and coronal sections from the other, allowing us to co-register the cytoarchitectural features of PPC with V1 projections.” | |
| mechanism | A WIDELY USED REGION NAME IS REPORTED TO HAVE NO COHERENT DEFINITION, AND THE COST IS NAMED: despite the popularity of the animal for studying the region there is LITTLE CONSENSUS ON A COHERENT ANATOMICAL DEFINITION, WHICH IS PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE IT COMPLICATES THE INTERPRETATION OF THE WEALTH OF NEW DATA. The missing definition is treated as a defect in the literature's ability to read its own results— “Despite the popularity of the mouse for studying parietal cortex, however, there is little consensus on a coherent anatomical definition of PPC in the mouse, which is problematic because it complicates the interpretation of the wealth of new data.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | THE PARTS THAT ARE ILL-DEFINED ARE ENUMERATED RATHER THAN GESTURED AT: what remains ILL-DEFINED is named as the BOUNDARIES which distinguish it from neighbouring areas, its LAMINAR ORGANIZATION and its CHEMOARCHITECTURAL PROFILE - three specific things, each of which a definition would have to fix— “More detailed aspects of mouse PPC anatomy, including the boundaries which distinguish it from neighboring areas, its laminar organization and chemoarchitectural profile remain ill-defined.” [checked against the archived source, not this rendering] | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | IN THE ABSENCE OF A DEFINITION, PRACTICE SUBSTITUTES TWO PROXIES, AND BOTH ARE NAMED: targeting has relied EITHER on functional mapping of the areas around the region OR on stereotactic coordinates followed by POST-HOC HISTOLOGICAL COMPARISON to one of SEVERAL REFERENCE ATLASES. Where the definition is missing, the coordinates and the atlas stand in for it— “Recent strategies for targeting PPC in mice have therefore relied either on functional mapping of extrastriate areas around PPC (Wang & Burkhalter, 2007), or on stereotactic coordinates followed by post-hoc histological comparison to one of several reference atlases” | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | AND THE PROXIES ARE CONSISTENT WITHIN A STUDY AND INCOMPARABLE ACROSS STUDIES, FOR A STATED REASON: these conventions MAY YIELD CONSISTENT RECORDING LOCATIONS WITHIN A STUDY, BUT HAMPER THE COMPARISON of the region ACROSS STUDIES, SINCE THEY ARE BASED ON DIFFERENT LABELING METHODOLOGIES AND UNRELATED NOMENCLATURES. Reliability inside a lab and incommensurability between labs, traced to the naming systems themselves— “These conventions may yield consistent recording locations within a study, but hamper the comparison of PPC across studies since they are based on different labeling methodologies and unrelated nomenclatures.” | mechanisms[3] |
| mechanism | THE CONTRIBUTION IS EXPLICITLY A RECONCILIATION OF NOMENCLATURES, NOT A NEW FINDING: the paper states that it RECONCILED WIDELY USED BUT DISPARATE NOMENCLATURES referring to the region VERSUS the areas around it - two naming systems, each with its own literature, mapped onto one another— “Importantly, we reconciled widely used but disparate nomenclatures that refer to PPC (Paxinos & Franklin, 2012) versus the extrastriate areas around it” | mechanisms[4] |
| mechanism | THE NEW DEFINITION IS ASSEMBLED FROM FOUR INDEPENDENT KINDS OF EVIDENCE, AND THE LIST IS THE DEFINITION: the combined approaches are said to provide A COHERENT DEFINITION that INCORPORATES laminar architecture, extrastriate projections, thalamic connections and cortico-cortical connections. Nothing here is a criterion on its own; the definition is the conjunction— “These combined approaches provide a coherent definition of mouse PPC that incorporates laminar architecture, extrastriate projections, thalamic, and cortico-cortical connections.” | mechanisms[5] |
| mechanism | THE DEFINING CRITERIA ARE STAINS - THE DEFINITION IS OPERATIONALISED BY REAGENTS: the region is delineated using CYTOARCHITECTURAL AND LAMINAR CRITERIA obtained from Nissl-, parvalbumin- and type-2 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor-immunostained sections. What the term picks out is fixed by what three stains show— “We sought to resolve these discrepancies by first delineating mouse PPC using cytoarchitectural and laminar criteria obtained from Nissl-, parvalbumin (PV)-, and type-2 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor (M2AChR)-immunostained coronal sections.” | mechanisms[6] |
| mechanism | AND ONE STATED AIM IS THAT THE CRITERIA BE AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE: the study aims to provide A RESOURCE for identifying the region with anatomical criteria THAT ARE EVIDENT USING UBIQUITOUS STAINING METHODS, SUCH AS A NISSL STAIN. A definition is chosen partly for the commonness of the equipment needed to apply it— “The two major aims of this study were therefore (i) to provide a resource for identifying mouse PPC with anatomical criteria that are evident using ubiquitous staining methods, such as a Nissl stain, and (ii) to define where PPC falls in relation to extrastriate areas around V1.” | mechanisms[7] |
| mechanism | WHEN THE ANATOMY OFFERS NO LANDMARKS, FUNCTION IS BORROWED TO SERVE AS ONE: since the dorsal cortical surface in rodents LACKS GROSS ANATOMICAL LANDMARKS, the pattern of responses in the surrounding areas has provided INCREASINGLY-USED FUNCTIONAL LANDMARKS for locating higher visual and associative regions. A location is fixed by what a region DOES because there is nothing to see— “Since the dorsal cortical surface in rodents lacks gross anatomical landmarks, the pattern of responses in extrastriate areas have provided increasinglyused functional landmarks for locating higher visual (Garrett et al., 2014) and associative regions in the posterior cortex” | mechanisms[8] |
| mechanism | AND THE BORROWED METHOD CARRIES ITS OWN PRECONDITION, WHICH IS STATED: functional mapping of that kind is NOT FEASIBLE IN THE ABSENCE OF a broadly expressed calcium indicator or intrinsic optical imaging - so the substitute for the missing definition is itself unavailable to laboratories without those tools— “However, functional mapping of this kind is not feasible in the absence of a broadly expressed calcium indicator or intrinsic optical imaging, and the location of these areas relative to PPC had not been defined explicitly until now.” | mechanisms[9] |
| mechanism | THE TWO NAMING SYSTEMS ARE FOUND TO OVERLAP PARTIALLY, NOT CLEANLY, AND THE PATTERN IS REPORTED PIECE BY PIECE: the anterior pole of the region DOES NOT OVERLAP with any of the neighbouring areas, the posterior sectors OVERLAP PARTLY with two of them, and its most lateral and posterior extent LARGELY OVERLAPPED with a third. Neither vocabulary's units nest inside the other's— “we established that the anterior pole of PPC does not overlap with any extrastriate areas, whereas the posterior sectors of PPC overlap partly with areas A and AM. The most lateral and posterior extents of PPC, area PtP (Paxinos & Franklin, 2012), largely overlapped with area RL.” | mechanisms[10] |
| mechanism | A NAME IS SHOWN TO ASSERT SOMETHING ITS OWN EVIDENCE COMPLICATES: these areas ARE REFERRED TO AS EXTRASTRIATE, IMPLYING A PRIMACY OF VISUAL PROCESSING - THOUGH they OVERLAP CONSIDERABLY with a region the paper characterises as cognitive. The label's morphology makes a claim about what the territory is for, and the overlap is the counter-evidence— “These areas are referred to as “extrastriate”, implying a primacy of visual processing (Wang & Burkhalter, 2007; Andermann et al., 2011; Marshel et al., 2011; Garrett et al., 2014), though they overlap considerably with PPC, which has cognitive” | mechanisms[11] |
| builds-on | Montero (1993) and Wang & Burkhalter (2007) extrastriate area maps— “A main goal of this study was to describe the location of extrastriate areas as described by Montero (1993) and Wang & Burkhalter (2007) in relation to the laminar, cyto- and chemoarchitectural features that distinguish PPC in the mouse.” | claim_relations[0] |
| extends | Wang & Burkhalter (2007), V1 projection mapping— “By characterizing the architectural boundaries of PPC and cross-referencing them with projections from V1 (Wang & Burkhalter, 2007), we established that the anterior pole of PPC does not overlap with any extrastriate areas, whereas the posterior sectors of PPC overlap partly with areas A and AM.” | claim_relations[1] |
| replicates | Wang & Burkhalter (2007), topography of V1 projections to LM and AL— “Also consistent with prior observations (Wang & Burkhalter, 2007), LM showed a mirrored medial-to-lateral ordering of the labeling (Figure 2A), as did the prominently labeled anterolateral (AL) field, just posterior to the S1 barrels.” | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | mouse PPC - A REGION IN ROUTINE USE WITHOUT ESTABLISHED CRITERIA: the boundaries distinguishing it from neighbouring areas are said to remain ill-defined, and the criteria this paper supplies are said not to have been established previously, so experiments had been targeting a region whose extent each laboratory fixed for itself— “including the boundaries which distinguish it from neighboring areas, its laminar organization and chemoarchitectural profile remain ill-defined” [checked against the archived source, not this rendering] | senses[0] |
| sense | comparability, here - PRESENT WITHIN A STUDY AND ABSENT ACROSS THEM: the same targeting strategies give consistent recording locations inside one study while hampering comparison between studies, because the studies rest on different labeling methodologies and unrelated nomenclatures - so a PPC result is reproducible where it was made and unjoinable elsewhere— “may yield consistent recording locations within a study, but hamper the comparison of PPC across studies since they are based on different labeling methodologies and unrelated nomenclatures” | senses[1] |
| sense | the delineation - THREE STAINS AND A LAMINAR READING: PPC is delineated using cytoarchitectural and laminar criteria from Nissl, parvalbumin and M2 muscarinic receptor immunostaining, so the region's extent is defined by what those particular stains show— “We sought to resolve these discrepancies by first delineating mouse PPC using cytoarchitectural and laminar criteria obtained from Nissl-, parvalbumin (PV)-, and type-2 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor (M2AChR)-immunostained coronal sections” | senses[2] |
| control | the MAChR2 labelling pattern was checked against staining in other sections after cross-reactivity was noticed between the M2 antibody and the BDA tracer — held — rules out that the labelling attributed to M2 receptors is the tracer showing through - a known cross-reactivity, noticed and then bounded rather than ignored— “Although we noted cross-reactivity between antibodies against M2-receptors and BDA labeling (Figures 3F-G), we confirmed that the patterns of MAChR2 labeling in other sections matched staining patterns in tissue preparations without BDA injections (as in Figure 1).” | controls[0] |
| edge | mouse PPC —operationalised-as→ cytoarchitectural and laminar criteria— “We sought to resolve these discrepancies by first delineating mouse PPC using cytoarchitectural and laminar criteria obtained from Nissl-, parvalbumin (PV)-, and type-2 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor (M2AChR)-immunostained coronal sections” | concept_edges[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| for which use | limitation — any functional claim about integration in mouse PPC: IT REMAINS TO BE MAPPED MORE FULLY WHERE THE INPUTS FROM ASSOCIATIVE, MOTOR, AND SENSORY AREAS ARE INTEGRATED SYNAPTICALLY WITHIN PPC, AND WHETHER GRADED TOPOGRAPHIES EXIST FOR DIFFERENT SENSORY MODALITIES— “As for mice, it remains to be mapped more fully where the inputs from associative, motor, and sensory areas are integrated synaptically within PPC, and whether graded topographies exists for different sensory modalities, as shown for visual and vibrissal afferents in area RL (Olcese et al., 2013).” | limitations[0] |
| for which use | limitation — the reference frame the mapping used: THE PRESENT STUDY FOCUSED ON CHARACTERIZING PPC RELATIVE TO EXTRASTRIATE PROJECTIONS, and comparable mapping against somatosensory, auditory or motor inputs was not done— “While the present study focused on characterizing PPC relative to extrastriate projections, comparable mapping could likely be performed in the context of somatosensory, auditory or motor inputs.” [checked against the archived source, not this rendering] | limitations[1] |
| for which use | limitation — the M2-receptor labelling in BDA-injected tissue: WE NOTED CROSS-REACTIVITY BETWEEN ANTIBODIES AGAINST M2-RECEPTORS AND BDA LABELING, controlled by comparison with tissue WITHOUT BDA INJECTIONS— “Although we noted cross-reactivity between antibodies against M2-receptors and BDA labeling (Figures 3F-G), we confirmed that the patterns of MAChR2 labeling in other sections matched staining patterns in tissue preparations without BDA injections (as in Figure 1).” | limitations[2] |
| for which use | limitation — any comparison of PPC results across laboratories: the authors state that existing strategies may yield consistent recording locations within a study but hamper comparison across studies, because they rest on different labeling methodologies and unrelated nomenclatures— “may yield consistent recording locations within a study, but hamper the comparison of PPC across studies since they are based on different labeling methodologies and unrelated nomenclatures” | limitations[3] |
| for which use | limitation — any claim about the extent of mouse PPC: the boundaries distinguishing it from neighbouring areas, its laminar organization and its chemoarchitectural profile are said to remain ill-defined— “including the boundaries which distinguish it from neighboring areas, its laminar organization and chemoarchitectural profile remain ill-defined” [checked against the archived source, not this rendering] | limitations[4] |
| for which use | limitation — any use of mouse PPC as a defined region before 2018: the authors state that the laminar, cytoarchitectonic and chemoarchitectonic criteria they describe have not, to their knowledge, been established previously— “In this study, we described laminar, cytoarchitectonic and chemoarchitectonic criteria for defining the mouse PPC and surrounding cortices, which, to our knowledge, have not been established previously” | limitations[5] |
| evidence status note | mechanism — The span contains 'increasinglyused' for 'increasingly-used' - a LOST-HYPHEN FUSION, damage shape 10. A line-break hyphen was dropped by the extraction and the halves fused. The quote is an exact substring and anchors correctly; the damage is in what a reader of the tag sees. None of the four shapes an internal tool looks for covers this, so it is annotated by hand.— “Since the dorsal cortical surface in rodents lacks gross anatomical landmarks, the pattern of responses in extrastriate areas have provided increasinglyused functional landmarks for locating higher visual (Garrett et al., 2014) and associative regions in the posterior cortex” | mechanisms[8] |
| evidence status note | mechanism — TRIMMED, not re-sliced: the sentence continues "...navigational and movement-related functions that can be expressed independently of visual input", which is the sharper half of the point - but the bioRxiv WATERMARK is spliced into the citation list mid-sentence ("cognitive (Harvey et al., 2012; 14 bioRxiv preprint ... doi: a ; Morcos & Harvey, 2016"), so no contiguous span reaches it. The tag claims only what the quote carries.— “These areas are referred to as “extrastriate”, implying a primacy of visual processing (Wang & Burkhalter, 2007; Andermann et al., 2011; Marshel et al., 2011; Garrett et al., 2014), though they… | mechanisms[11] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | Where associative, motor and sensory inputs are integrated synaptically inside PPC, and whether modality-specific topographies exist there, remain unmapped. | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The mapping was done only against extrastriate visual projections; equivalent mapping against somatosensory, auditory or motor inputs was not performed. | limitations[1] |
| limitation | Antibody cross-reactivity between M2-receptor staining and BDA tracer labelling was observed and had to be controlled for post hoc. | limitations[2] |
| limitation | Existing targeting strategies are consistent inside a study and incomparable between studies. | limitations[3] |
| limitation | The boundaries that distinguish the area from its neighbours are stated to remain ill-defined. 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 | The criteria for defining the area are stated not to have been established before this paper. 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] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Medial PPC is marked out from its neighbours by a drop in parvalbumin staining in both cell bodies and neuropil, against dense PV staining in adjacent retrosplenial and somatosensory cortex. 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 | A sharp fall in M2 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor staining in superficial layers marks the border between agranular retrosplenial cortex and medial PPC. 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 | The appearance of V1, marked by strong M2AChR staining, is the best indicator that a coronal section lies caudal to all PPC subfields. 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 anterior pole of PPC overlaps no extrastriate area, its posterior sectors partly overlap areas A and AM, and its lateral-posterior part PtP largely overlaps area RL. 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 | At -1.91mm from bregma all labelled fibres of extrastriate area A fall inside lateral PPC, with no extrastriate label in medial PPC. 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 | Anterograde injections confined to PPC label the associative thalamic nuclei LP, Po and, more anteriorly, LD. 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 | PPC thalamic output was specific to associative nuclei, sparing the adjacent primary relay nuclei DLG (visual) and VPM (somatosensory). 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 | Parietal output to frontal cortex is coarsely topographic: medial PPC projects to cingulate cortex and lateral PPC to secondary motor cortex. 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 | Monosynaptic rabies tracing showed PPC receives input from every cortical area to which it sends anterograde label, so all these cortical connections are reciprocal. 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 | PPC's densest cortical projections go to extrastriate areas AM/V2M and AL/V2L, with AM/V2M showing a medial-to-lateral topography matching the injection sites and AL/V2L sometimes showing a mirrored order. 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] |
| finding | V1 projects most strongly to the lateromedial field immediately lateral to it and to the laterointermediate field beyond that. 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[10] |
| quantity | 24 — total number of adult C57BL/6JBomTac mice used in the 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. | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 600µm — anterior-to-posterior extent of mouse PPC between somatosensory and visual cortices 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 | -1.55mm — bregma level at which medial PPC first appears in coronal sections 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 | -1.91mm — bregma level at which all labelled fibres of extrastriate area A lie within lateral PPC 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 | 0.37mm / 1.25mm / -1.90mm — spacing between the three PPC injections and their starting mediolateral and anteroposterior stereotaxic coordinates 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 | 12 days / 230nl / 11 days — interval between helper virus and rabies injection, rabies volume, and survival time before perfusion 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 | eight / two — number of mice receiving bilateral versus unilateral V1 tracer injections 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 = 4 — number of mice used for monosynaptic rabies retrograde tracing from PPC 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 | 40µm — thickness of the coronal sections, cut in three equally spaced series 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] |
| definition | coherent anatomical definition 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 | flat maps 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] |
| evidence status note | definition — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| concept | mouse PPC 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 | nomenclatures 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 | cytoarchitectural and laminar criteria 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 | chemoarchitectural profile 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 | labeling methodologies 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] |
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