phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | a hermeneutical circle in which visualizing the annotations sends the analyst back to re-assess the categories that produced them— “after visualizing the material in this way, it often turns out that the categories themselves need to be re-assessed. In other words, the categorization and visualization in themselves create a sort of hermeneutical circle in which both parts influence one another reciprocally.” | |
| claim-type | method— “in what follows we introduce a tool that is designed, among other things, to enable just that: at one and the same time to take advantage of categorization while also fostering speculation.” | |
| method — evidence | — “Through the case study, we seek to demonstrate that, by using correct methods and tools (not only ViS-À-ViS but others also), one can ultimately use visualization of categorization as the basis for what might be called established speculation” | |
| object of study — evidence | — “we present, theorize and contextualize an investigation of figurative language in a corpus of Hebrew liturgical poetry from late antiquity, from both a manual and a computational point of view.” | |
| research question — evidence | — “How much room is there for sample-based research in a computationally-based annotation process? Could a particular concept of categorization support it?” | |
| contribution — evidence | — “we propose a more playful approach to the epistemological status of categories, one that does not leave them solely as the cornerstone of the annotation process, but returns to examine them again and again from a critical perspective.” | |
| mechanism | the original annotations are carried into the digital tool untouched, a rule the authors adopt because whether a word is figurative is a hermeneutical decision that differs between annotators and within one annotator at a later date— “Here we took another important decision, which was to stick strictly to the original annotations in order for the experiment to be as sound as possible. As literary scholars, who cannot ignore the subjective nature of interpretation, it was an intuitive act: the decision whether a word is figurative or not is a hermeneutical one, and… | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | the corpus's figurative share is correlated against two further corpora newly annotated for figurative language - the Psalms and a ninth-century poet - which is what supplies an answer to the question the dissertation could not answer, small in comparison to what— “But “small” in comparison to what? In the dissertation this question could not have been answered and probably did not seem worthwhile at the time. In order to correlate the results, we examined them against two new corpora that have now been annotated for figurative language: the Book of Psalms from the Bible and the poetry of Pinchas the… | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | a per-genre ratio of figurative to non-figurative words, set against the corpus-wide rate, which is what converts a qualitative impression about a genre into a checkable quantity— “The quantification of the results allowed one to examine easily what the figurative density (the ratio between figurative and non-figurative words) of each genre might be, and here, too, the results corroborated some of the initial findings while refuting others. Most notably is the genre of the Hosha’not (hosanna), which ranked at 25% of… | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | annotation counts are aggregated into ten-percent chunks of each text, which normalises length and is what makes a positional pattern comparable across poems of different sizes— “The figures below visualize the annotations’ distribution in four Avodah poems. The left-hand side represents the beginning of the text, and the right-hand side its end. The vertical axis represents the number of figurative usages, aggregated per ten-percent chunks of the texts” | mechanisms[3] |
| mechanism | individual tags can be withdrawn from the chart as well as added, so a pattern is exposed by subtracting annotations rather than only by displaying them— “What is more, this visualization is interactive, and with a single click a tag can be added or withdrawn from the screen, thus enabling the user to play with the visualization and consider different views and interpretation modes. Here, one of the core features of the tool comes into play, one that gives it its experimental nature, namely… | mechanisms[4] |
| mechanism | a tagset too large and too hierarchical to grasp in the annotation tool itself is given an interactive network-oriented representation in the separate visualisation tool— “Large, hierarchical tagsets are hard to grasp and visualize in CATMA, and ViS-À-ViS offers an interactive representation of the tagset in a network-oriented chart” | mechanisms[5] |
| mechanism | the chart collapses and uncollapses level by level, and a level's size is drawn as the number of children it has, which is what makes the inner hierarchy of the tagset readable as shape— “Here a representation of the tagset is visible and the interactive chart enables one to collapse or uncollapse the various levels. The size of each level relates to the number of children it has, which once more offers a useful insight into the structure and inner hierarchy of the tagset.” | mechanisms[6] |
| mechanism | the annotations of two or more annotators are viewed side by side, which is what turns the scholar's attention to the individual and subjective interpretation of each annotator instead of to a single reading of the text— “As was previously noted, CATMA, and thus also ViS-À-ViS, support multiple annotations and annotators. This way the user can view side-by-side the annotations of two or more annotators in order to compare and analyze them. This turns the attention of the scholar to the individual and subjective interpretation of each annotator and presents… | mechanisms[7] |
| mechanism | the variation between annotators is not collapsed into a gold or a silver standard; the multiplicity is visualised instead, so the disagreement is left as a question about the correct annotation rather than answered— “Instead of collapsing the variation into a gold or a silver standard, ViS-À-ViS advocates for the visualization of multiplicity. In other words, instead of providing an answer concerning the “correct” annotation, it raises a question about it and promotes once more literary speculation.” | mechanisms[8] |
| distinguishes-from | Franco Moretti, distant reading— “To be clear, this is not another version of Franco Moretti’s distant reading, because, unlike Moretti, when we seriously annotate text after text we do interpret it.” | claim_relations[0] |
| builds-on | Rieder and Röhle (2012)— “the transition to a digital tool might well have coincided with a certain and widespread perception of the adopting of the computational option as a move in the direction of objectivity, scientification, and the like. However, as we shall see, and as other scholars have already argued, the picture is more complex, since, even in such a case… | claim_relations[1] |
| qualifies | Piper— “Our approach here is not very different from Piper’s, although we believe that this argument goes quite naturally hand in hand with computational… | claim_relations[2] |
| extends | Marienberg-Milikowsky et al. (2022) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[3] |
| sense | categorization - built upward from the data, by collecting instances until a category that contains them is 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. | senses[0] |
| sense | categorization - built downward by formalization, by removing actual data until an abstract category remains 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. | senses[1] |
| sense | reading - distant reading, which the paper says is better understood as a metaphor, since meaning is extracted without reading the text 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. | senses[2] |
| sense | annotation - a close reading practice, based on sensitive attention to every detail in the text 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. | senses[3] |
| sense | annotation - a modelling operation that prepares the object for future, as-yet-unknown questions 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. | senses[4] |
| sense | inter-annotator variation - the driving force of interpretation, to be visualized rather than collapsed into a standard 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. | senses[5] |
| sense | the price of a category system - not inaccuracy but ATTRACTION: solidity, precision and caution are named as what makes it seductive, and the seduction is the cost 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. | senses[6] |
| sense | figurative density - a counted ratio of figurative to non-figurative words, which for one genre is 25% against a corpus figure of 11% 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. | senses[7] |
| sense | figurative density - the aesthetic impression of figurativeness, which the paper states can be LOW in the same poem whose counted density is high 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. | senses[8] |
| control | comparing a genre's figurative density against the overall figurative density of the whole corpus — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. — rules out that a genre's apparently high figurative density is the corpus-wide rate rather than a property of that genre Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[0] |
| differs in | Franco Moretti, distant reading — WHETHER EACH TEXT IS INTERPRETED ON THE WAY. The method reaches the same place - a claim about a whole corpus - and the paper refuses the label anyway: 'this is NOT another version of Franco Moretti's distant reading, because, unlike Moretti, when we seriously annotate text after text we do interpret it.' The distinction is in the procedure, not in the output, which is why it is invisible in the result Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[0] |
| differs in | Rieder and Röhle (2012) — WHETHER GOING COMPUTATIONAL BUYS OBJECTIVITY. The move is described as widely PERCEIVED as 'a move in the direction of objectivity, scientification, and the like', and then: 'However, as we shall see, and as other scholars have already argued, the picture is more complex, since, even in such a case, this move has a price'. The borrowed claim is that a method change costs something rather than only adding rigour 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. | claim_relations[1] |
| differs in | Piper — WHICH COMPUTATIONAL PRACTICE THE ARGUMENT IS PAIRED WITH. The agreement is stated first - 'Our approach here is NOT VERY DIFFERENT FROM PIPER'S' - and the difference is the instrument: projects relying on 'the systematic annotation of texts, rather than on machine learning algorithms, which - despite being based on pre-existing annotated texts - emphasize the distance from the text itself'. Same argument, different tooling, and the reason given is proximity to the text 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. | claim_relations[2] |
| differs in | Marienberg-Milikowsky et al. (2022) — WHAT TO DO WITH DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN ANNOTATORS. The prior work argued variation is the driving force of interpretation; this paper turns that into a tool behaviour: 'Instead of collapsing the variation into a gold or a silver standard, ViS-À-ViS advocates for the visualization of multiplicity ... instead of providing an answer concerning the "correct" annotation, it RAISES A QUESTION about it'. Inter-annotator disagreement stops being noise to be resolved and becomes the displayed result Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[3] |
| edge | annotation —is-a→ modeling Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[0] |
| edge | inter-annotator agreement —contrasted-with→ visualization of multiplicity 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[2] |
| audit | ViS-À-ViS —distinct-from→ CATMA — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but endpoint by anaphora: 'This reality' = CATMA's basic visualisation capabilities (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[3] |
| differs in | close reading —contrasted-with→ distant reading — THE AXIS IS WHETHER THE TEXT IS ACTUALLY READ. 'unlike close reading, where the scholar actually reads the text closely, distant reading - regardless of its specific history - is BETTER UNDERSTOOD AS A METAPHOR.' The contrast is not two techniques on a scale of distance; one names an activity and the other is said to name none. 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[4] |
| outcome | control — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[0] |
| for which use | limitation — the annotations as a fixed measurement: the paper states the same annotator may annotate differently at a later 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[0] |
| for which use | limitation — the dissertation-era annotations as a defined category system: the paper says no well-defined tagset existed 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 — treating the analysed examples as a sample of the corpus: they were chosen for interest, not representativity 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 — corpus-level generalisations from this workflow: the paper states some 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 — reading the digital re-annotation as more objective than the manual one: the paper denies this 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 — textual anchoring as a cost-free virtue: this paper argues excessive anchoring has a price 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 — planning or costing the exploratory phase: the paper says its length and fruitfulness cannot be predicted 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 — use of the tool outside CATMA: at the time of writing 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 figurative-density figure as the genre's figurative character: the paper holds the qualitative reading equally valid 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 — systematic annotation as a neutral instrument: the paper states the practice changes the annotator's disposition, describing students as moving from one critical position to another through annotating 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] |
| for which use | limitation — annotation followed by query and visualization as making interpretation legible: the paper states the same sequence ends with metadata becoming data and the interpretation becoming rigid 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[10] |
| for which use | limitation — the qualitative characterisation of a genre's figurative language: the paper reports its own earlier published assertion about the Hosha'not as incorrect once the density was counted 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[11] |
| for which use | limitation — figurative density as a proxy for how figurative a text reads: the paper states the same poem can be high in figurative words and low in figurative effect, and explains why 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[12] |
| limitation | Annotation is stated to be hermeneutical and unstable across annotators and across time, including within the same annotator. 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 original annotation phase had no well-defined tagset and the category definitions were flexible. 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 examples analysed in the original work were not selected for representativity. 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 | Moving from many annotated texts to a statement about the corpus is said to involve an almost inevitable reduction. 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 paper states that adopting the computational option carries a price rather than delivering objectivity. 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 argues that excessive textual anchoring of speculation and hypothesis carries a cost. 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 exploratory visualization phase is declared unpredictable in duration and in whether it yields anything. 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 tool interoperates with one annotation system only. 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 | A quantitative and a qualitative reading of the same genre disagree, and the paper holds both to be valid rather than resolving them. 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 price of a category system is named as an effect on the annotator, not on the data: students become addicted to it and are described as ending in a different intellectual position from the one they started in. 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] |
| limitation | The stated end state of the process is that the interpretation itself becomes rigid. 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[10] |
| limitation | A claim in the author's own earlier dissertation is identified as incorrect by the quantitative measure, and the paper says so in print, naming the source: the genre was described as low on figurative language and measures at more than twice the corpus density. 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[11] |
| limitation | The reason the human reading was wrong is named, and it is not carelessness: the words are figurative but the poem does not sound figurative, so impression and count come apart. 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[12] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Visualising the annotations repeatedly forced the categories to be revised. 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] |
| evidence status note | finding — 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.findings[0] |
| finding | Categorisation and visualisation form a hermeneutic circle: each changes the 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[1] |
| finding | The first annotation pass had a working notion of categories but no defined tagset — the tagset came later. 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] |
| evidence status note | finding — 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.findings[2] |
| finding | The initial scheme was flat: four devices with no hierarchy between them. 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] |
| quantity | 25% — figurative density of the Hosha'not genre: one word in four 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 | 11% — figurative density of the whole corpus, the comparison the 25% stands out against 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] |
| key-terms | annotation, categorization, visualization, tagset, CATMA, figures of speech, corpus |
| concept | annotation 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 | tagset 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 | modeling 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 | in-line annotation 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 | inter-annotator agreement 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 | visualization of multiplicity 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 | close 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. | concepts[9] |
| concept | distant 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. | concepts[10] |
| concept | text classification 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 | CATMA 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 | ViS-À-ViS 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] |
| concept | category system 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[14] |
| concept | systematic annotation 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[15] |
| concept | figurative density 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[16] |
| concept | Hosha’not 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[17] |
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