(cid:NN). The PDF this text was extracted from encodes 6 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 | spatial entity linkage across location-based sources— “The problem of finding which spatial entities belong to the same physical entity is referred to as spatial entity linkage or spatial entity resolution.” | |
| claim-type | method— “Our proposed solution (QuadSky) starts with a time-efficient spatial blocking technique (QuadFlex), compares pairwise the spatial entities in the same block, ranks the pairs using Pareto optimality with the SkyRank algorithm, and finally, classifies the pairs with our novel SkyEx-* family of algorithms that yield 0.85 precision and 0.85… | |
| method — evidence | — “In this paper, we address the problem of spatial entity linkage across different location-based sources.” | |
| mechanism | the blocking structure's splitting criterion is changed from CAPACITY to density and diagonal, because a count of points is not a spatial quantity: a dense city block should split before its capacity is reached, and two farm points far apart may still be one entity— “First, a quadtree needs a capacity (number of points) as a parameter. The capacity is not a meaningful parameter for spatial blocking, while the density of the area is a better candidate. For example, if the area is too dense (e.g., city center), even though the capacity is not reached, a further split would be more beneficial. On the… | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | a point is allowed to be assigned to MORE THAN ONE child of the split, so that two nearby entities are not separated merely because a dividing line happened to fall between them— “Finally, a quadtree splits into four children, and sometimes nearby points might fall into different leaves. We modify the procedure of the assignment of the points into a child by allowing more than one assignment.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | the address is deliberately NOT compared by edit distance, because syntactic and spatial closeness come apart in both directions - one changed digit is 650 metres, eight added characters is the same building - and is instead scored by equality, inclusion, or nothing— “The similarity between two addresses cannot be measured with Levenshtein, Jaccard, Cosine, etc. since a small change in the address might be a giant gap in the spatial distance between the entities. For example, ”Jyllandsgade 15 9480 Løkken” and ”Jyllandsgade 75 9480 Løkken” have a distance of 1 and Levenshtein similarity of 0.963, but they… | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | category and keyword similarity is taken as the MAXIMUM over all cross-pairs of the two entities' keyword lists under a Wordnet-based measure, rather than by string matching, so that synonyms count as agreement— “The similarity of fields like categories, keywords, or metadata cannot be compared only syntactically. Sometimes, several synonyms are used to express the same idea. Thus, we need to find a similarity than considers the synonyms as well. We use Wordnet [20] for detecting the type of relationship between two words and Wu& Palmer similarity… | mechanisms[3] |
| mechanism | the weighted scoring function is removed entirely and replaced by Pareto optimality: points on one frontier have equal utility, so the method says a pair is better than another WITHOUT quantifying by how much, and needs no attribute weights to do it— “We propose a more relaxed technique that uses Pareto optimality [28] for filtering the positive class. A solution (x, y) is Pareto optimal when no other solution can increase x without decreasing y. The points in the same Pareto frontier or skyline have the same utility. Widely used in economics and multi-objective problems, Pareto optimality… | mechanisms[4] |
| mechanism | the whole threshold problem is collapsed to ONE number - which skyline level separates the classes - in place of a threshold per attribute similarity plus another for the function that aggregates them— “In contrast to the threshold-based methods used in entity resolution problems [13, 18, 19] where we have to find a threshold for each similarity of the attributes and then a threshold for the similarity function that aggregates the similarity scores, we have simplified our problem to only one parameter: k.” | mechanisms[5] |
| mechanism | THE UNSUPERVISED CUT-OFF WORKS BECAUSE THE POSITIVE CLASS IS NOT A CLUSTER: matching pairs are scattered, since several different patterns can make a match, so instead of intra-class compactness the method separates them by their distance to the NEGATIVE class, and sets the cut-off where that inter-class distance starts to increase— “Our classes are not characterized by a small intra-class distance. Various patterns can reveal a positive class; for example, a similar name but different category or similar category and similar address, etc. Thus, the positive pairs, positioned in the first skylines, are scattered and do not necessarily form a cluster. However, they can… | mechanisms[6] |
| mechanism | the attributes used to BUILD the ground truth - phone, opening hours - are excluded from the similarity computation, and the stated reason is that they are used to construct the ground truth— “The similarity between two fields expressed as numbers, dates, times or intervals is a boolean decision (true or false). Even though the similarity of these fields relies only on an equality check, most of the effort is put in data preparation. For example, the different phone formats should be identified and cleaned from prefixes. Other data… | mechanisms[7] |
| extends | the authors' earlier conference paper [38] (QuadFlex + SkyEx)— “We significantly extend a previous conference paper [38].” | claim_relations[0] |
| builds-on | the skyline computation method of [38] for spatial blocking and pairwise comparison— “The present paper uses the solution in [38] for the spatial blocking and the pairwise comparisons.” | claim_relations[1] |
| builds-on | the lattice-based skyline algorithm of [42]— “SkyRank uses the method proposed in [42], which first scales down the d-dimensional domain and then pre-filters the data using a lattice.” | claim_relations[2] |
| builds-on | WordNet [20] and the Wu & Palmer semantic similarity measure [21]— “We use Wordnet [20] for detecting the type of relationship between two words and Wu& Palmer similarity measure (wup) [21].” | claim_relations[3] |
| contradicts | the spatial entity matching tools of Karam et al. [17], Berjawi et al. [18] and Morana et al. [19]— “The works in [17–19] lack an evaluation of the algorithms.” | claim_relations[4] |
| sense | spatial entity vs spatial object - THE DISTINCTION THE WHOLE PAPER RESTS ON: an object is identified by its coordinates alone, an entity is not, so the two words name things that need different identity conditions even though both sit at a point on a map— “However, while a spatial object is identified only by the coordinates, this is not the case for spatial entities” | senses[0] |
| sense | identity - AS A COMBINATION OF ATTRIBUTES, NOT A KEY: the paper states outright that what makes a spatial entity itself is several attributes together, and that inconsistency between sources makes that combination hard to infer— “The identity of a spatial entity is the combination of several attributes. Unfortunately, the identity of a spatial entity is sometimes difficult to infer due to the inconsistencies within and among the sources; each location-based source contains different attributes; some attributes might be missing and even contradicting” | senses[1] |
| sense | similarity - SYNTACTIC AND SPATIAL COME APART: a one-character change in an address is a 0.963 string similarity and 650 metres on the ground, which is why the paper refuses ordinary string metrics for exactly the field that looks most like an identifier— “The similarity between two addresses cannot be measured with Levenshtein, Jaccard, Cosine, etc. since a small change in the address might be a giant gap in the spatial distance between the entities. For example, ”Jyllandsgade 15 9480 Løkken” and ”Jyllandsgade 75 9480 Løkken” have a distance of 1 and Levenshtein similarity of 0.963, but they… | senses[2] |
| sense | `QuadSky` - A PIPELINE WHOSE FOUR PARTS ARE NAMED TWICE OVER, ONCE BY FUNCTION AND ONCE BY ALGORITHM. `QuadSky consists of four main parts: spatial blocking (QuadFlex), pairwise comparisons, ranking the pairs (SkyRank), and labelling the pairs (the SkyEx-* family of algorithms).` Three of the four carry a coined proper name in a parenthesis and one does not - `pairwise comparisons` is the stage the authors did not invent anything for, and the naming records that asymmetry exactly. A reader tracking `SkyRank` and a reader tracking `ranking the pairs` are following the same stage under a name that belongs to a different level.— “QuadSky consists of four main parts: spatial blocking (QuadFlex), pairwise comparisons, ranking the pairs (SkyRank), and labelling the pairs (the SkyEx-* family of algorithms).” | senses[3] |
| control | manual checking of the labels on a sample of the pairs - 1,500 in the sample dataset and about 10,000 overall - against the automatic labels inferred from shared website or phone number — partial — rules out that the automatic labelling is wrong in the two ways the paper names: the same entity holding a different phone number or website, and different entities sharing a phone number— “Hence, we checked around 10,000 of the pairs, and for the rest, we rely on automatic labeling.” | controls[0] |
| retracted | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · spatial entity —distinct-from→ spatial object — RE-GROUNDED. The old span named only 'spatial object' and began mid-contrast ('However, while ...'). This sentence names both AND CARRIES THE DIFFERENTIA: an object is fully determined by its coordinates, an entity is geo-located AND has more. A distinction with its criterion.— “However, while a spatial object is identified only by the coordinates, this is not the case for spatial entities”— “However, while a spatial object is identified only by the” | concept_edges[0] |
| differs in | spatial entity —distinct-from→ spatial object — THE AXIS IS WHETHER IDENTITY BEYOND POSITION IS PART OF THE THING. 'Spatial objects differ from spatial entities mainly because a spatial object is fully determined by its coordinates or its spatial shape whereas a spatial entity, in addition to being geo-located, has a welldefined identity (name, phone, categories).' Both are located; only one carries an identity, and that is the whole of the distinction.— “Spatial objects differ from spatial entities mainly because a spatial object is fully determined by its coordinates or its spatial shape whereas a spatial entity, in addition to being geo-located, has a welldefined identity (name, phone, categories).”— “a spatial object is fully determined by its coordinates or its spatial shape” | concept_edges[2] |
| note | spatial entity —distinct-from→ spatial object — RE-GROUNDS another row of this record: the old span named ONE endpoint.— “Spatial objects differ from spatial entities mainly because a spatial object is fully determined by its coordinates or its spatial shape whereas a spatial entity, in addition to being geo-located, has a welldefined identity (name, phone, categories).” | concept_edges[2] |
| note | spatial blocking —part-of→ QuadSky — 'consists of' is the containment cue and it is in the gate's list, so this edge is cue-tested. The whole is named first and the parts second - CONTAINER_FIRST order.— “QuadSky consists of four main parts: spatial blocking (QuadFlex), pairwise comparisons, ranking the pairs (SkyRank), and labelling the pairs (the SkyEx-* family of algorithms).” | concept_edges[3] |
| relation | spatial blocking —part-of→ QuadSky — QuadSky consists of four main parts: spatial blocking (QuadFlex), pairwise comparisons, ranking the pairs (SkyRank), and labelling the pairs— “QuadSky consists of four main parts: spatial blocking (QuadFlex), pairwise comparisons, ranking the pairs (SkyRank), and labelling the pairs (the SkyEx-* family of algorithms).” | concept_edges[3] |
| note | QuadFlex —part-of→ QuadSky — 'consists of' is the containment cue and it is in the gate's list, so this edge is cue-tested. The whole is named first and the parts second - CONTAINER_FIRST order.— “QuadSky consists of four main parts: spatial blocking (QuadFlex), pairwise comparisons, ranking the pairs (SkyRank), and labelling the pairs (the SkyEx-* family of algorithms).” | concept_edges[4] |
| relation | QuadFlex —part-of→ QuadSky — QuadSky consists of four main parts: spatial blocking (QuadFlex), pairwise comparisons, ranking the pairs (SkyRank), and labelling the pairs— “QuadSky consists of four main parts: spatial blocking (QuadFlex), pairwise comparisons, ranking the pairs (SkyRank), and labelling the pairs (the SkyEx-* family of algorithms).” | concept_edges[4] |
| note | pairwise comparisons —part-of→ QuadSky — 'consists of' is the containment cue and it is in the gate's list, so this edge is cue-tested. The whole is named first and the parts second - CONTAINER_FIRST order.— “QuadSky consists of four main parts: spatial blocking (QuadFlex), pairwise comparisons, ranking the pairs (SkyRank), and labelling the pairs (the SkyEx-* family of algorithms).” | concept_edges[5] |
| relation | pairwise comparisons —part-of→ QuadSky — QuadSky consists of four main parts: spatial blocking (QuadFlex), pairwise comparisons, ranking the pairs (SkyRank), and labelling the pairs— “QuadSky consists of four main parts: spatial blocking (QuadFlex), pairwise comparisons, ranking the pairs (SkyRank), and labelling the pairs (the SkyEx-* family of algorithms).” | concept_edges[5] |
| note | SkyRank —part-of→ QuadSky — 'consists of' is the containment cue and it is in the gate's list, so this edge is cue-tested. The whole is named first and the parts second - CONTAINER_FIRST order.— “QuadSky consists of four main parts: spatial blocking (QuadFlex), pairwise comparisons, ranking the pairs (SkyRank), and labelling the pairs (the SkyEx-* family of algorithms).” | concept_edges[6] |
| relation | SkyRank —part-of→ QuadSky — QuadSky consists of four main parts: spatial blocking (QuadFlex), pairwise comparisons, ranking the pairs (SkyRank), and labelling the pairs— “QuadSky consists of four main parts: spatial blocking (QuadFlex), pairwise comparisons, ranking the pairs (SkyRank), and labelling the pairs (the SkyEx-* family of algorithms).” | concept_edges[6] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — partial | controls[0] |
| for which use | limitation — any accuracy figure reported here: the attributes used to construct the ground truth are deliberately excluded from the similarity computation, so what counts as the same entity is defined by one set of attributes and predicted from a different set— “In this paper, we do not compute the similarity between these attributes as we use them to construct the ground truth” | limitations[4] |
| for which use | limitation — any use of string-similarity metrics on addresses: the paper states they cannot be used, giving two addresses with a Levenshtein similarity of 0.963 that are 650 meters apart | limitations[5] |
| for which use | limitation — any linkage of these sources on coordinates: different spatial entities may share coordinates, as with shops in a shopping mall, and one entity may appear at coordinates 82 meters apart in two sources | limitations[6] |
| for which use | limitation — carrying an entity-resolution method over to spatial entities: the authors state such solutions are learned on human entity datasets and that the resemblance of behaviours between the two cannot merely be assumed Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[7] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | Ground truth for the full dataset is mostly automatic, not manually checked, because manual labelling at that scale was not feasible. 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 | Performance on the full dataset is lower than on the manually labelled sample, possibly an artefact of the automatic labelling rather than of the 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. | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The skyline-based algorithms could in principle degrade to cubic complexity. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[2] |
| limitation | The ranking step is computationally expensive because it requires repeated Pareto frontier computation. 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 attributes that define a correct match are the ones excluded from the scoring, so identity is fixed by whichever fields were reserved. 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 | String similarity is stated to be inapplicable to the attribute that looks most like a key, with a worked counterexample. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[5] |
| limitation | Coordinates fail as an identifier in both directions at once. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[6] |
| limitation | The methods this work builds on were fitted to a different kind of entity, and the authors say the resemblance cannot be assumed. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[7] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · Sources describing the same physical world disagree: each covers only part of it, with different attributes, sometimes contradicting each other. 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] |
| retracted | finding — RE-GROUNDED. The published string was not verbatim in EITHER copy of the paper. A quote field promises the author's words; this held a copy with the line-break hyphen closed in 'at- tributes'. Re-cut from the paper as it stands; the closing was correct scholarship and silently unverifiable. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · The SkyEx-* algorithms reach 0.85 precision and 0.85 recall on a manually labeled set of 1,500 pairs. 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] |
| retracted | finding — RE-GROUNDED. The published string was not verbatim in EITHER copy of the paper. A quote field promises the author's words; this held 'QuadSky achieves 0.85 precision and 0.85 recall'. The paper attributes those figures to 'our novel SkyEx-* family of algorithms', which is the LABELLING STEP of QuadSky - one of its four parts, beside QuadFlex, pairwise comparison and SkyRank. Naming the pipeline where the paper names the classifier moves a measured result onto a larger object than the one measured. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| quantity | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · 0.85 precision / 0.85 recall — QuadSky on a manually labelled set of 1,500 pairs 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] |
| retracted | quantity — RE-GROUNDED. The published string was not verbatim in EITHER copy of the paper. A quote field promises the author's words; this held 'QuadSky achieves 0.85 precision and 0.85 recall'. The paper attributes those figures to 'our novel SkyEx-* family of algorithms', which is the LABELLING STEP of QuadSky - one of its four parts, beside QuadFlex, pairwise comparison and SkyRank. Naming the pipeline where the paper names the classifier moves a measured result onto a larger object than the one measured. | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 0.87 precision / 0.6 recall — QuadSky on a semi-manually labelled set of 777,452 pairs 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] |
| evidence status note | quantity — 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.quantities[1] |
| definition | spatial entity linkage 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] |
| 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[0] |
| key-terms | spatial entity linkage, entity resolution, blocking, quadtree, Pareto optimality, precision, recall, F-measure |
| concept | spatial entity linkage 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 | spatial entity 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 | spatial object 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 | ground truth 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 | spatial blocking 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 | QuadFlex — not defined in this paper's own words; the quadtree-based blocking stage, named separately from the step it implements 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] |
| concept | pairwise comparisons — not defined in this paper's own words; the second stage, and the only one of the four given no algorithm name of its own 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[11] |
| concept | SkyRank — not defined in this paper's own words; the ranking stage 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[12] |
| concept | QuadSky — not defined in this paper's own words; the whole pipeline - the PARENT of the partition, and it was not a concept on this record either 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[13] |
| precision P | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · 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] |
| retracted | precision — RE-GROUNDED. The published string was not verbatim in EITHER copy of the paper. A quote field promises the author's words; this held 'QuadSky achieves 0.85 precision and 0.85 recall'. The paper attributes those figures to 'our novel SkyEx-* family of algorithms', which is the LABELLING STEP of QuadSky - one of its four parts, beside QuadFlex, pairwise comparison and SkyRank. Naming the pipeline where the paper names the classifier moves a measured result onto a larger object than the one measured. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| recall R | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · 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] |
| retracted | recall — RE-GROUNDED. The published string was not verbatim in EITHER copy of the paper. A quote field promises the author's words; this held 'QuadSky achieves 0.85 precision and 0.85 recall'. The paper attributes those figures to 'our novel SkyEx-* family of algorithms', which is the LABELLING STEP of QuadSky - one of its four parts, beside QuadFlex, pairwise comparison and SkyRank. Naming the pipeline where the paper names the classifier moves a measured result onto a larger object than the one measured. | content_tags.statistics[1] |
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