phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | span of absolute judgment and span of immediate memory— “First, the span of absolute judgment and the span of immediate memory impose severe limitations on the amount of information that we are able to receive, process, and remember.” | |
| claim-type | existence— “There is a clear and definite limit to the accuracy with which we can identify absolutely the magnitude of a unidimensional stimulus variable.” | |
| method — evidence | — “I shall begin my case history by telling you about some experiments that tested how accurately people can assign numbers to the magnitudes of various aspects of a stimulus.” | |
| object of study — evidence | — “My problem is that I have been persecuted by an integer.” | |
| transfer | from information theory (Shannon / communication theory): analyzing the limits of human perception and memory using information theory (channel capacity, bits)— “the results are analyzed in terms of the concepts of information theory” | transfers[0] |
| transfer | from communication engineering (information theory): Shannon's information measure, the channel and its capacity, carried into psychology - and the paper is explicit that the experiments would not exist without it— “Since these experiments would not have been done without the appearance of information theory on the psychological scene, and since the results are analyzed in terms of the concepts of information theory, I shall have to preface my discussion with a few remarks about this theory.” | transfers[1] |
| transfer | from statistics: A translation table offered in the other direction, so psychologists could read the information measure as the variance they already knew— “The "amount of information" is exactly the same concept that we have talked about for years under the name of "variance."” | transfers[2] |
| mechanism | the human observer behaves like a limited-capacity communication channel: absolute judgment saturates at a channel capacity of about 2.5 bits (~7 categories)— “This asymptotic value we take to be the channel capacity of the observer” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Treating the observer as a communication channel makes the limit measurable: input information is raised until transmitted information stops rising, and that asymptote is the capacity— “This asymptotic value we take to be the channel capacity of the observer: it represents the greatest amount of information that he can give us about the stimulus on the basis of an absolute judgment.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | Immediate memory holds a fixed number of chunks rather than a fixed number of bits, which is why it behaves unlike absolute judgment— “The span of immediate memory seems to be almost independent of the number of bits per chunk, at least over the range that has been examined to date.” | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | Because the limit is in chunks, packing more information into each chunk raises how much can be held without raising the count— “Since the memory span is a fixed number of chunks, we can increase the number of bits of information that it contains simply by building larger and larger chunks, each chunk containing more information than before.” | mechanisms[3] |
| mechanism | Recoding is the operation that builds bigger chunks: group the input, name the group, remember the name— “There are many ways to do this recoding, but probably the simplest is to group the input events, apply a new name to the group, and then remember the new name rather than the original input events.” | mechanisms[4] |
| mechanism | Adding dimensions and accepting cruder judgments on each raises the span of absolute judgment far beyond seven— “It seems that by adding [p. 91] more dimensions and requiring crude, binary, yes-no judgments on each attribute we can extend the span of absolute judgment from seven to at least 150.” | mechanisms[5] |
| builds-on | information theory (channel capacity)— “This asymptotic value we take to be the channel capacity of the observer: it represents the greatest amount of information that he can give us about the stimulus on the basis of an absolute judgment.” | claim_relations[0] |
| replicates | Hayes (10), memory-span experiment with five kinds of test material— “There is nothing wrong with Hayes's experiment, because Pollack ( 16 ) repeated it much more elaborately and got essentially the same result.” | claim_relations[1] |
| replicates | Hake and Garner (8), absolute judgment of visual position— “The Hake-Garner experiment has been repeated by Coonan and Klemmer.” | claim_relations[2] |
| builds-on | Külpe (14), abstraction experiment— “These multidimensional judgments are strongly reminiscent of the abstraction experiment of Külpe ( 14 ).” | claim_relations[3] |
| extends | information theory as imported into psychology— “Informational concepts have already proved valuable in the study of discrimination and of language; they promise a great deal in the study of learning and memory; and it has even been proposed that they can be useful in the study of concept formation.” | claim_relations[4] |
| critiques | the assumption that immediate memory is limited by the same quantity as absolute judgment— “If the amount of information in the span of immediate memory is a constant, then the span should be short when the individual items contain a lot of information and the span should be long when the items contain little information.” | claim_relations[5] |
| sense | seven - the span of absolute judgment: about seven categories distinguishable along one dimension, a limit in BITS— “I would propose to call this limit the span of absolute judgment , and I maintain that for unidimensional judgments this span is usually somewhere in the neighborhood of seven.” | senses[0] |
| sense | seven - the span of immediate memory: about seven items retained, a limit in CHUNKS and almost independent of the bits in each— “Everybody knows that there is a finite span of immediate memory and that for a lot of different kinds of test materials this span is about seven items in length.” | senses[1] |
| sense | seven - the span of attention: about six objects taken in at a glance, a third limit with a similar number and a different mechanism— “I have just shown you that there is a span of absolute judgment that can distinguish about seven categories and that there is a span of attention that will encompass about six objects at a glance.” | senses[2] |
| sense | amount of information - as the paper translates it for the reader: variance, in the ordinary statistical sense— “The "amount of information" is exactly the same concept that we have talked about for years under the name of "variance."” | senses[3] |
| sense | amount of TRANSMITTED information - covariance or correlation between input and output, a different quantity that shares most of its name— “There are two simple rules to follow. Whenever I refer to "amount of information," you will understand "variance." And whenever I refer to "amount of transmitted information," you will understand "covariance" or "correlation."” | senses[4] |
| differs in | the assumption that immediate memory is limited by the same quantity as absolute judgment — THE AXIS IS INFORMATION PER ITEM. 'If the amount of information in the span of immediate memory is a constant, then the span should be short when the individual items contain a lot of information and the span should be long when the items contain little information.' The critique works by deriving a prediction that varies with information per item - precisely the quantity the criticised assumption holds constant.— “If the amount of information in the span of immediate memory is a constant, then the span should be short when the individual items contain a lot of information and the span should be long when the items contain little information.”— “If the amount of information in the span of immediate memory is a constant, then the span should be short when the individual items contain… | claim_relations[5] |
| edge | span of attention —distinct-from→ span of absolute judgment | concept_edges[1] |
| edge | chunk —distinct-from→ bit | concept_edges[3] |
| audit | span of immediate memory —operationalised-as→ chunk — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span relates memory span to a fixed number of chunks; operationalised-as is a loose reading. | concept_edges[4] |
| audit | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · recoding —causes→ chunk — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but endpoint by anaphora: 'this recoding' = recoding the input into a code with fewer chunks (previous sentence). Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[5] |
| retracted | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · recoding —causes→ chunk — RE-GROUNDED. The old span describes WHAT recoding IS - 'There are many ways…' - and names only one endpoint. It carries NO EFFECT CUE AT ALL, so a 'causes' edge standing on it would fail the gate's own causes test today; it predates that rule. The replacement names both endpoints and states the effect: '…recoding INCREASES the bits per chunk'. Both spans are Miller's and both are accurate; the second is evidence for THIS TYPE and the first is not. Selected from an internal tool after reading six offers and DECLINING FIVE - cook2013's candidate carried a glued sentence-case heading, schmidhuber2015's was a contents listing, and grilli2016's and another row of this record's existing spans were STRONGER for their types than the offers (grilli2016's sentence on modular block structure; another row of this record's on a span of a fixed number of chunks). A both-endpoint span is not an improvement if it is weaker evidence for the type. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[5] |
| audit | noise —contrasted-with→ transmitted information — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span separates output variance due to input from noise; contrasted-with is a loose reading. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[8] |
| weight | noise —contrasted-with→ transmitted information — 0.9 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[8] |
| audit | recoding —causes→ span of immediate memory — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says a recoding procedure COULD be used to increase the span; hedged. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[11] |
| effect direction | recoding —causes→ span of immediate memory — increases Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[11] |
| evidential status | recoding —causes→ span of immediate memory — CONJECTURED at this point in the paper - the authors say they SUSPECT it; the demonstration follows Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[11] |
| note | span of absolute judgment —distinct-from→ span of immediate memory — RE-GROUNDS another row of this record: the old span named ONE endpoint. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[12] |
| audit | recoding —causes→ chunk — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span says recoding increases the bits per chunk; 'causes chunk' drops the quantity. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[13] |
| for which use | limitation — the recurrence of seven across channel capacity and memory span: THERE SEEMS TO BE A REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A COINCIDENCE 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] |
| for which use | limitation — the span of perceptual dimensionality: THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS SUSPICION 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] |
| for which use | limitation — the channel-capacity values: THESE VALUES ARE APT TO BE SLIGHTLY TOO LOW BECAUSE THE DATA FROM ALL SUBJECTS WERE POOLED BEFORE THE TRANSMITTED INFORMATION WAS COMPUTED 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] |
| for which use | limitation — every claim counted in chunks: WE ARE NOT VERY DEFINITE ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTES A CHUNK OF INFORMATION 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] |
| for which use | limitation — the subitizing comparison: THE DATA ON NUMBER ESTIMATES HAVE NOT BEEN ANALYZED IN INFORMATIONAL TERMS, and the four-bit figure is offered as a guess Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[4] |
| for which use | limitation — the seven itself: I SUSPECT THAT IT IS ONLY A PERNICIOUS, PYTHAGOREAN COINCIDENCE Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[5] |
| for which use | limitation — the same scope as limitations[3] - the unit the memory limit is counted in is undefined Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[6] |
| for which use | limitation — the chunk-independence claim: AT LEAST OVER THE RANGE THAT HAS BEEN EXAMINED TO DATE Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[7] |
| for which use | limitation — the span of seven specifically: I MAINTAIN THAT FOR UNIDIMENSIONAL JUDGMENTS THIS SPAN IS USUALLY SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF SEVEN - not judgments in general Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[8] |
| for which use | limitation — the argument as presented: IN THE INTERESTS OF COMMUNICATION I HAVE SUPPRESSED THE TECHNICAL DETAILS OF INFORMATION MEASUREMENT Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[9] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | the recurrence of 'seven' across channel capacity and memory span may be merely coincidental Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The suggested span of perceptual dimensionality (about ten) is stated to have no supporting objective evidence. 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 | Some reported channel-capacity values are probably underestimates because data were pooled across subjects before computing transmitted information. 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 central theoretical unit, the chunk, is not precisely 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[3] |
| limitation | The subitizing comparison rests on a guess, since the number-estimation data were never analysed in informational terms. 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 paper's own closing position is that the recurring seven is probably coincidence, not one underlying limit Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[5] |
| limitation | The unit that the memory limit is counted in is admitted to be undefined 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 chunk independence holds only over the range tested so far, which the author states rather than assumes Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[7] |
| limitation | The span of seven is claimed for unidimensional judgments specifically, not judgments in general Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[8] |
| limitation | The information-theoretic machinery is deliberately paraphrased away, so the argument as presented cannot be checked against the formalism it rests on Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[9] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | The author asks whether the discontinuity at seven reflects the same basic process that limits unidimensional judgments to about seven categories. 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 | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · The author distinguishes bits of information from chunks of information; the number of bits is constant for absolute judgment. 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] |
| retracted | finding — RE-GROUNDED. The published string was in NEITHER copy of the paper. Ours began 'between bits…'; the paper says 'I HAVE FALLEN…'. The span also ran into the page break 'informa- [p. 93] tion', so it now stops at the clause before it. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | the span of absolute judgment is about seven categories for unidimensional 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.findings[2] |
| finding | adding dimensions with crude judgments on each raises that span to at least 150 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | the span of immediate memory is almost independent of the number of bits per chunk 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 | recoding into larger chunks raises how much information the span can carry without raising the count Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[5] |
| finding | the author declines to unify the recurring sevens and calls the coincidence Pythagorean 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] |
| quantity | EVIDENCE CORRECTED (RE-GROUNDED) · about 7 — the limit on the span of absolute judgment and immediate memory 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 evidence was THE PAPER'S OWN TITLE - 'The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on our Capacity for Processing Information' - which names the quantity and asserts nothing. A title is furniture in the same sense as a reference line: it says what the paper is about. The replacement is Miller STATING the quantity in his own voice, defining the span of absolute judgment and putting it 'in the neighborhood of seven'. The old span survived every check because an internal tool carried a literal 0x08 where a word boundary was meant, so the <h1> was never stripped from the body tags are checked against., measured by the project, verified here against the record's own title field. | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | about seven — the span of absolute judgment, in categories, for unidimensional 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.quantities[1] |
| quantity | about seven items — the span of immediate memory, in chunks - a different quantity that happens to have the same number Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | about six objects — the span of attention, at a glance - the third of the three limits 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 | at least 150 — the span of absolute judgment once many dimensions are used with crude judgments on each 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 | one bit — the unit, defined as a choice between two equally likely alternatives 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] |
| variable | amount of information in the stimuli (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 | amount of transmitted information (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[1] |
| definition | chunk Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | recoding 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 | bit 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] |
| definition | channel capacity 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] |
| definition | span of absolute judgment 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[5] |
| definition | recoding 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[6] |
| definition | amount of information 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[7] |
| key-terms | information, bits, judgment, memory, capacity, seven, stimuli, channel, chunk, span of absolute judgment, span of immediate memory, span of attention, channel capacity, bit, recoding, absolute judgment, transmitted information, variance, information theory, communication channel, unidimensional, noise |
| concept | span of immediate memory — not defined in this paper's own words; how many items can be held and reproduced - limited in chunks, not bits Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[5] |
| concept | recoding — not defined in this paper's own words; grouping inputs and renaming the group, the operation that builds larger chunks 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] |
| mean μ | as written: average of 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] |
| standard-deviation SD/σ | 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] |
| statistical-significance | as written: significantly 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] |
| variance σ² | 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] |
| claim type | existence — a second reading reaching the same value; recorded: existence 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. | alternatives.claim_type |
| phenomenon | span of absolute judgment and span of immediate memory — a second reading reaching the same value; recorded: span of absolute judgment and span of immediate memory 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. | alternatives.phenomenon |
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