The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 20 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy
Open accessAbstract
A theory of analogy must describe how the meaning of an analogy is derived from the meanings of its parts. In the structure-mapping theory, the interpretation rules are characterized as implicit rules for mapping knowledge about a base domain into a target domain. Two important features of the theory are (a) the rules depend only on syntactic properties of the knowledge representation, and not on the specific content of the domains; and (b) the theoretical framework allows analogies to be distinguished cleanly from literal similarity statements, applications of abstractions, and other kinds of comparisons. Two mapping principles are described: (a) Relations between objects, rather than attributes of objects, are mapped from base to target; and (b) The particular relations mapped are determined by systematicity, as defined by the existence of higher-order relations.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This paper presents structure-mapping as a framework for how analogies are interpreted, arguing that analogical mapping transfers relations between objects rather than object attributes, and that relations belonging to interconnected higher-order systems are preferred. It distinguishes analogy from literal similarity, abstraction, and mere appearance matches, and cites prior empirical work as support.
Key findings
- Analogy maps relational predicates from base to target while discarding object attributes; for example, the atom/solar-system analogy maps relations such as revolving around, attraction, and relative mass, but not attributes such as color or temperature.
- The systematicity principle holds that a predicate is more likely to be mapped if it belongs to a mutually interconnected system of relations, especially higher-order causal or constraint structures; this explains why a relation like “more massive than” is preserved while a formally similar relation like “hotter than” is not.
- The framework separates comparison types by predicate overlap: literal similarity maps many attributes and many relations; analogy maps few attributes and many relations; abstraction maps few attributes and many relations with abstract base objects; mere appearance maps attributes but not relations; anomaly maps neither.
- Empirical support is cited from prior studies: subjects’ interpretations of analogical comparisons were predominantly relational, and aptness ratings correlated with the amount of relational information produced; no numeric values are reported in this paper.
Methods
- Theoretical paper: knowledge is represented as propositional networks with syntactic predicate types—attributes take one argument, relations take two or more, and predicates can be first-order or higher-order.
- Worked examples (Rutherford atom/solar system, heat/water, arithmetic analogy) are used to derive mapping rules and a taxonomy of domain comparisons.
- Empirical support is summarized from prior studies in which subjects wrote interpretations of analogical comparisons and naive judges rated assertions as attribute-based or relation-based; developmental and science-learning studies are also cited.
Limitations
- The paper states a simplifying assumption that the hearer begins with object correspondences and then maps relations; it notes that actual processing order is variable and that object correspondences may be settled only before relational mapping is finished.
- The paper assumes predicates are carried across as identical matches and notes that treating predicates as merely similar risks an infinite regress.
- Evident from the text: empirical support is brief and relies on cited studies rather than new experiments or statistics; the paper is primarily theoretical and does not report detailed sample sizes or quantitative results.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
62 Own interpretation · 13 Not checked yet · 2 Own result · 1 No basis given
In the paper
“Further, a correlation of aptness ratings and relationality ratings revealed that subjects rated as most apt those analogies for which they wrote the greatest amount of relational information.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gentner, 1980b
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Such a “degree of overlap” approach seems reasonably correct for literal similarity comparisons.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tversky (1977)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One symptom of this systematicity is that changing one of these relations affects the others.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We could accomplish this by postulating that analogies select for dynamic causal knowledge, or more generally, for appropriate abstractions.Either of these would be a mistake: The former course limits the scope of analogy unreasonably,”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is research supporting the structure-mapping approach.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, if we assume the systematicity principle, then the set of overlapping predicates is likely to include higher-order relations such as CAUSE and IMPLIES.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By the systematicity principle, to the extent that people recognize (however vaguely) that the system of predicates connected with central forces is the deepest, most interconnected mappable system for this analogy, they will favor relations that belong to that system in their interpretations.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Partial knowledge of a system is often sufficient for a person to gauge its interconnectedness.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, the rules are such as to distinguish analogy from other kinds of domain comparisons, such as abstraction or literal similarity.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The same interdependencies hold for the atom, if we make the appropriate node substitutions:”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These object correspondences are used to generate the candidate set of inferences in the target domain.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 21
- It may state two separate claims as one. 8
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An informal observation is that the earliest comparisons are chiefly literalsimilarity matches, followed by analogies, followed by general laws.”
hedgedcorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“His first comparisons were similarity matches, e.g., water coming through a constricted hose.Later, he produced analogies such as a train speeding up or slowing down, and balls banging into the walls and transferring momentum.Finally, he arrived at a general statement of the Bernoulli principle, that velocity increases and pressure decreases in a constriction.”
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The results indicated a strong focus on relational information in interpreting analogies.Relational information predominates over attributional information in analogy interpretations, but not in object descriptions generated by the same sub-”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gentner, 1980b
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The systematicity principle offers a way to satisfy both requirements.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Part of our understanding about analogy is that it conveys a system of connected knowledge, not a mere assortment of independent facts.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Intuitively, the second scenario is more interesting than the first: (1) conveys merely a static spatial description, while (2) conveys a dynamic causal description.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“2. Try to preserve relations between objects: Nbi, WI --> ML, t,),”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“3. (The Systematicity Principle) To decide which relations are preserved, choose systems of relations:”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These kinds of representations can deal well with object attributes, but are extremely limited in their ability to express relations between objects, and especially higher-order relations.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ortony, 1979
- Not checked yetcites Rumelhart & Abrahamson, 1973
- Not checked yetcites Tourangeau & Sternberg, 1981
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These equations embody higher-order relations that connect the lowerorder relations (1) through (4) into a mutually constraining structure.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is why MORE MASSIVE THAN is preserved while HOTTER THAN is not: Only MORE MASSIVE THAN participates in the central-force system of predicates.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Predicates from B are carried across6 to T, using the node substitutions dictated by the”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Potential analogies are less likely to be noticed, since they require accessing the data base via relational matches; object matches are of no use.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The central idea is that an analogy is an assertion that a relational structure that normally applies in one domain can be applied in another domain.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The strucfure-mapping theory describes the implicit interpretation rules of analogy.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The strength of an analogical match does not seem to depend on the overall degree of featural overlap; not all features are equally relevant to the interpretation.Only certain kinds of mismatches count for or against analogies.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(2) An analogy is a comparison in which relational predicates, but few or no object attributes, can be mapped from base to target.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“(1) A literul similurity statement is a comparison in which a large number of predicates is mapped from base to target, relative to the number of nonmapped predicates (e.g., Tversky, 1977).The mapped predicates include both object-attributes and relational predicates.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tversky, 1977
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These rules have the desirable property that they depend only on syntactic properties of the knowledge representation, and not on the specific content of the domain.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Dynamic causal information [e.g., (2)] will usually be represented in a more deeply embedded structure than simple stative information [e.g., (l)].”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such a system can be represented by an interconnected predicate structure in which higher-order predicates enforce connections among lower-order predicates.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the structuremapping theory, a simple but powerful distinction is made among predicate types that allows us to state which ones will be mapped.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“1.Discard attributes of objects: A(b,)I -•t -> LWJ”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Wbstraction differs from analogy and the other comparisons i n having few abject-attributes i n the bose domain as well as few object-attributes i n the target domain.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, this theoretical framework allows us to state the differences between analogies and literal similarity statements, abstractions and other kinds of comparisons.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and the latter course is both vague, in that “appropriateness” is difficult to define explicitly, and incorrect, in that analogies can also convey inappro-e”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Most explanatory analogies are l-1 mappings, in which m = n.However, there are exceptions (Gentner, 1982).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gentner, 1982
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“indeed the number of mappable relations may have no clear upper bound.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The analogy maps the object nodes of B onto the object nodes of T: M: bi --> t,”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Many such metaphors involve conventional vehicles, such as “giraffe” above, or conventional dimensional matches, such as “a deep/shallow idea”.[Glucksberg, Gildea, & Bookin, 1982;Lakoff & Johnson, 19801).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Glucksberg, Gildea, & Bookin, 1982
- Not checked yetcites Lakoff & Johnson, 19801
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Predicates are carried across as identical matches, and similarity can be restated as identity among some number of component predicates.
“The assumption that predicates are brought across as idenficul matches is crucial to the clarity of this discussion.”
“I will assume instead that similarity can be restated as identity among some number of component predicates.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Partial knowledge of a system is often sufficient for a person to gauge its interconnectedness.
“I make the assumption here that partial knowledge of the system is often sufficient to allow a person to gauge its interconnectedness.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
In comprehending an analogy, the hearer begins with object correspondences and then maps relations across.
“Yn this discussion I have made the simplifying assumption that, in comprehension of analogy, the hearer starts with the object correspondences and then maps across the relations.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Higher-level forms of relational reasoning, such as analogy and inference, involve mapping correspondences and creating higher-order relations between schemas (i.e., relations between relations; Gentner, 1983;Holyoak, 2012).”
From Mental Time Travel? A Neurocognitive Model of Event Simulation. (2020) · cites this paper as Gentner, 1983
Citations
Cites
Schema induction and analogical transfer
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(83)90002-6 · Cited by 3,010 · cited 1×
“Gick and Holyoak have also emphasized the relationship between analogical matching and the formation of general schemas in an interesting series of studies of transfer in problem-solving (Gick & Holyoak, 1980, 1983; Holyoak, in press).”
BackgroundGick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(80)90013-4 · Cited by 2,552 · cited 4×
“Gick and Holyoak have also emphasized the relationship between analogical matching and the formation of general schemas in an interesting series of studies of transfer in problemsolving (Gick & Holyoak, 1980, 1983; Holyoak, in press). Other researchers have explored specific instances of relational mapping. VanLehn an…”
BackgroundInfluentialModels and Analogies in Science
Ardley, G. (1965) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.5840/philstudies19651438 · Cited by 1,770
Flowing Waters or Teeming Crowds: Mental Models of Electricity
Dedre Gentner, C., & Gentner, D. R. (2014) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315802725-10 · Cited by 699
Self-citationOrtony, A. (1979) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.86.3.161 · Cited by 687
On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors?
Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P. M., & Bookin, H. B. (1982) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(82)90467-4 · Cited by 426
A model for analogical reasoning
Rumelhart, D. E., & Abrahamson, A. A. (1973) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90023-6 · Cited by 260
Are Scientific Analogies Metaphors
Gentner, D. (1981) · Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) · Cited by 248
Self-citationImages and models, similes and metaphors
Miller, G. A. (1993) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173865.019 · Cited by 238
Moore, J. J. A., & Newell, A. (2018) · Figshare · doi:10.1184/r1/6606152 · Cited by 117
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Rumelhart, D. E., &Norman. D. A. Analogical processes in learning. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognirive skills and fheir acquisifion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1981.
- Schustack, M. W.. & Anderson. J. R. Effects of analogy to prior knowledge on memory for new information. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1979, 18, 565-583.
- Steels. L. An applicaiive view of object oriented programming (MIT A.I. Memo No. 15). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, March 1982.
- Stevens, A., Collins, A., & Goldin, S. E. Misconceptions in student's understanding. Journal o/Man-Machine Sfudies. 1979, II. 145-156.
- Tourangeau, R., & Sternberg, R. J. Aptness in metaphor. Cogniriue Psychology, 1981, 13, 27-55.
- Tversky, A. Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 1977, 84, 327-352.
- Winston, P. H. Learning and reasoning by analogy. CACM, 1980. 23, No. 12. Winston, P. H. Learning new principles from precedenrs and exercises. (MIT Artificial Intelli- gence Memo No. 632). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, May 1981.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 884
Inference and Association in Children's Early Numerical Estimation
Sullivan, J. L., & Barner, D. (2014) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/cdev.12211 · Cited by 91
Keller, P. E., & Stevens, C. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied · doi:10.1037/1076-898x.10.1.3 · Cited by 87
Urbanski, M., Bréchemier, M.-L., Garcin, B., Bendetowicz, D., de Schotten, M. T., Foulon, C., Rosso, C., Clarençon, F., Dupont, S., Pradat-Diehl, P., et al. (2016) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/aww072 · Cited by 81
Costello, F., & Keane, M. T. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.27.1.255 · Cited by 85
Preusse, F., Elke, V. D. M., Deshpande, G., Krüeger, F., & Wartenburger, I. (2011) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2011.00022 · Cited by 88
Chrysikou, E. G. (2006) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.32.4.935 · Cited by 85
Shen, Y. (2008) · The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511816802.019 · Cited by 84
A descriptive study of mental models
PAYNE, S. J. (1991) · Behaviour & Information Technology · doi:10.1080/01449299108924268 · Cited by 81
The effects of surface and structural feature matches on the access of story analogs.
Catrambone, R. (2002) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.28.2.318 · Cited by 80
A computational tool for creative idea generation based on analogical reasoning and ontology
Han, J., Shi, F., Chen, L., & Childs, P. R. N. (2018) · Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing · doi:10.1017/s0890060418000082 · Cited by 78
The use and effectiveness of analogical instruction in diverse secondary content classrooms.
Bulgren, J. A., Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., et al. (2000) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.3.426 · Cited by 70
Aubusson, P. J., Harrison, A. G., & Ritchie, S. M. (2006) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/1-4020-3830-5_1 · Cited by 69
Schema Induction in Problem Solving: A Multidimensional Analysis.
Chen, Z., & Mo, L. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.3.583 · Cited by 74
The Role of Feature Emergence in Metaphor Appreciation
Utsumi, A. (2005) · Metaphor and Symbol · doi:10.1207/s15327868ms2003_1 · Cited by 64
Avoiding Design Fixation: Transformation and Abstraction in Mapping from Source to Target
GOLDSCHMIDT, G. (2011) · The Journal of Creative Behavior · doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2011.tb01088.x · Cited by 64
Conviction Narrative Theory: A Theory of Choice Under Radical UncertaintyPreprint
Johnson, S. G. B., Bilovich, A., & Tuckett, D. (2020) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/urc96 · Cited by 60
Distributed analogical idea generation: inventing with crowds
Yu, L., Kittur, A., & Kraut, R. E. (2014) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2556288.2557371 · Cited by 60
Representational change and analogy: How analogical inferences alter target representations.
Blanchette, I., & Dunbar, K. N. (2002) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.28.4.672 · Cited by 58
Stebner, F., Schuster, C., Weber, X.-L., Greiff, S., Leutner, D., & Wirth, J. (2022) · Metacognition and Learning · doi:10.1007/s11409-022-09322-x · Cited by 57
Goswami, U. (1995) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00911.x · Cited by 55
Morphometry of Left Frontal and Temporal Poles Predicts Analogical Reasoning Abilities
Aichelburg, C., Urbanski, M., de Schotten, M. T., Humbert, F., Lévy, R., & Volle, E. (2014) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhu254 · Cited by 51
Voeniatou, S. (1987) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1987.tb01426.x · Cited by 53
Choosing the Right Path: Image Schema Theory as a Foundation for Concept Invention
Hedblom, M. M., Kutz, O., & Neuhaus, F. (2015) · Journal of Artificial General Intelligence · doi:10.1515/jagi-2015-0003 · Cited by 52
Post-Festum and Heuristic Analogies
Wilbers, J., & Duit, R. (2006) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/1-4020-3830-5_4 · Cited by 51
Semplates: A new concept in lexical semantics?
Levinson, S. C., & Burenhult, N. (2009) · Language · doi:10.1353/lan.0.0090 · Cited by 49
When will the milk spoil? Everyday induction in human intelligence
Sternberg, R. J., & Kalmar, D. A. (1997) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/s0160-2896(97)90042-8 · Cited by 48
Sources of Inspiration in Industrial Practice. The Case of Knitwear Design
Eckert, C. M., & Stacey, M. (2003) · J of Design Research · doi:10.1504/jdr.2003.009826 · Cited by 49
Useful Products in Information Systems Theorizing: A Discursive Formation Perspective
Hassan, N. R., Lowry, P. B., Tech, V., & Mathiassen, L. (2022) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1jais.00730 · Cited by 52
Deficits in analogical reasoning in adolescents with traumatic brain injury
Krawczyk, D. C. (2010) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2010.00062 · Cited by 51
Moore, C. F., Dixon, J. A., & Haines, B. A. (1991) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01543.x · Cited by 45
van Rooij, I., & Baggio, G. (2020) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/7qbpr · Cited by 45
A review of design fixation: research directions and key factors
Alipour, L., Faizi, M., Moradi, A. M., & Akrami, G. (2018) · International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation · doi:10.1080/21650349.2017.1320232 · Cited by 44
A case-;study of requirements reuse through product families
Lam, W. (1998) · Annals of Software Engineering · doi:10.1023/a:1018912105115 · Cited by 42
2 Principal parts and degrees of paradigmatic transparency
Finkel, R. A., & Stump, G. (2009) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547548.003.0002 · Cited by 44
Varieties and Directions of Interdomain Influence in Metaphor
Barnden, J. A., Glasbey, S. R., Lee, M., et al. (2004) · Metaphor and Symbol · doi:10.1207/s15327868ms1901_1 · Cited by 40
Interorganizational Diffusion in International Relations
Lenz, T. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198823827.001.0001 · Cited by 84
Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734689.013.0010 · Cited by 40
On the spontaneous discovery of a mathematical relation during problem solving
Dixon, J. A. (2004) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1016/j.cogsci.2003.12.004 · Cited by 39
Synthesis of UNIX Programs Using Derivational Analogy
Bhansali, S., & Harandi, M. T. (1993) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1022612610155 · Cited by 39
The structure and function of spontaneous analogising in domain-based problem solving
Bearman, C. R., Ball, L. J., & Ormerod, T. C. (2007) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/13546780600989686 · Cited by 37
Multi-Label Contrastive Learning for Abstract Visual Reasoning
Małkiński, M., & Mańdziuk, J. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems · doi:10.1109/tnnls.2022.3185949 · Cited by 41
Labeling Bias and Categorical Induction: Generative Aspects of Category Information.
Yamauchi, T. (2005) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.3.538 · Cited by 37
Subramaniam, K., Beeman, M. J., Faust, M., & Mashal, N. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00211 · Cited by 37
A Review of Worked Examples in Programming Activities
Müldner, K., Jennings, J., & Chiarelli, V. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Computing Education · doi:10.1145/3560266 · Cited by 46
Extending Analogical Generalization with Near-Misses
McLure, M. D., Friedman, S., & Forbus, K. D. (2015) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v29i1.9228 · Cited by 35
Ding, Z., Srinivasan, A., Macneil, S., & Chan, J. (2023) · Creativity and Cognition · doi:10.1145/3591196.3593516 · Cited by 35
Resources for Research on Analogy: A Multi-disciplinary Guide
Guarini, M., Butchart, A., Smith, P. S., & Moldovan, A. (2009) · Informal Logic · doi:10.22329/il.v29i2.1225 · Cited by 36
Using Metaphor to Make Sense and Build Theory in Qualitative Analysis
Aubusson, P. J. (2015) · The Qualitative Report · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2002.1962 · Cited by 33
Explanation Perspectives from the Cognitive Sciences---A Survey
Srinivasan, R., & Chander, A. (2020) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2020/670 · Cited by 33
Analogy instructions promote efficiency of cognitive processes during hockey push-pass performance.
van Duijn, T., Hoskens, M. C. J., & Masters, R. S. W. (2018) · Sport Exercise and Performance Psychology · doi:10.1037/spy0000142 · Cited by 31
When Do Words Promote Analogical Transfer?
Son, J. Y., Doumas, L. A. A., & Goldstone, R. L. (2010) · The Journal of Problem Solving · doi:10.7771/1932-6246.1079 · Cited by 34
When Coffee Cups Are Like Old Elephants, or Why Representation Modules Don’t Make Sense
French, R. M. (1999) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-585-29605-0_10 · Cited by 31
Assessing the Development of Relational Framing in Young Children
Kirsten, E. B., & Stewart, I. (2021) · The Psychological Record · doi:10.1007/s40732-021-00457-y · Cited by 33
The Interplay of Analogy-Making with Active Vision and Motor Control in Anticipatory Robots
Kiryazov, K., Petkov, G., Grinberg, M., et al. (2008) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74262-3_13 · Cited by 28
Inkspire: Supporting Design Exploration with Generative AI through Analogical Sketching
Lin, D. C.-E., Kang, H. B., Martelaro, N., Kittur, A., Chen, Y.-Y., & Hong, M. K. (2025) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713397 · Cited by 37
Assessing Generalization Within and Between Trap Tasks in the Great Apes
Martín-Ordás, G., & Call, J. (2009) · International Journal of Comparative Psychology · doi:10.46867/ijcp.2009.22.01.02 · Cited by 28
Symbols and Similarity: You Can Get Too Much of a Good Thing
DeLoache, J. S., & Sharon, T. (2005) · Journal of Cognition and Development · doi:10.1207/s15327647jcd0601_3 · Cited by 28
Internal representation and rule development in object-oriented design
Kim, J., Lerch, F. J., & Simon, H. A. (1995) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/212430.212450 · Cited by 28
Analogy-preserving functions: A way to extend Boolean samples
Couceiro, M., Hug, N., Prade, H. M., & Richard, G. (2017) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2017/218 · Cited by 31
Gentner, D., Falkenhainer, B. C., & Skorstad, J. (1987) · doi:10.3115/980304.980345 · Cited by 28
Self-citationContext-Sensitivity of Human Memory: Episode Connectivity and Its Influence on Memory Reconstruction
Kokinov, B., Petkov, G., & Petrova, N. (2007) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74255-5_24 · Cited by 27
Metacognitive study strategies in a college course and their relation to exam performance
Zepeda, C. D., & Nokes‐Malach, T. J. (2020) · Memory & Cognition · doi:10.3758/s13421-020-01106-5 · Cited by 29
Fostering Understanding by Structural Alignment as a Route to Analogical Learning
Masón, L. (2004) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1023/b:truc.0000026512.88700.32 · Cited by 27
Metaphorical reasoning and design expertise: A perspective for design education
Casakin, H. (2011) · Journal of Learning Design · doi:10.5204/jld.v4i2.73 · Cited by 27
Mapping relational structure in spatial reasoning
Gattis, M. (2004) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1016/j.cogsci.2004.02.001 · Cited by 33
Orconstructions: Monosemy vs. polysemy
Ariel, M. (2014) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709848.003.0020 · Cited by 27
Moral Decision-Making by Analogy: Generalizations versus Exemplars
Blass, J. A., & Forbus, K. D. (2015) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v29i1.9226 · Cited by 27
Facilitating transfer through incorrect examples and explanatory feedback
Corral, D., & Carpenter, S. K. (2020) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/1747021820909454 · Cited by 26
Rittle‐Johnson, B., Star, J. R., & Durkin, K. L. (2020) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721420969365 · Cited by 36
Doumas, L. A. A., Morrison, R., & Richland, L. E. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01235 · Cited by 27
Experimenting with Ethnography
(2021) · Duke University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781478091691 · Cited by 26
A software app to support creativity in dementia care
Zachos, K., Maiden, N., Pitts, K., et al. (2013) · doi:10.1145/2466627.2466637 · Cited by 25
Cotnoir, A. J. (2019) · Journal of Analytic Theology · doi:10.12978/jat.2019-7.00-51-51021417 · Cited by 24
The Origin of Ideas: blending, creativity, and the human spark
de Oliveira, M. A. (2014) · Scripta · doi:10.5752/8793 · Cited by 24
Solving and Explaining Analogy Questions Using Semantic Networks
Boteanu, A., & Chernova, S. (2015) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v29i1.9400 · Cited by 24
A theory of relation learning and cross-domain generalization.
Doumas, L. A. A., Puebla, G., Martin, A. E., & Hummel, J. E. (2022) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000346 · Cited by 31
An evolutionary process without variation and selection
Gabora, L., & Steel, M. (2021) · Journal of The Royal Society Interface · doi:10.1098/rsif.2021.0334 · Cited by 23
Lola, A. C., & Tzetzis, G. C. (2021) · International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology · doi:10.1080/1612197x.2021.1877325 · Cited by 21
Forbus, K. D. (2019) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/11578.001.0001 · Cited by 50
Embedding Analogical Reasoning into 5E Learning Model: A Study of the Solar System
Devecioglu-Kaymakci, Y. (2016) · Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education · doi:10.12973/eurasia.2016.1266a · Cited by 23
Vers un modèle théorique du transfert : les contraintes à respecter
Bracke, D. (2008) · Revue des sciences de l éducation · doi:10.7202/502010ar · Cited by 23
Flying under the radar: figurative language impairments in focal lesion patients
Ianni, G. R., Cardillo, E. R., McQuire, M., et al. (2014) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00871 · Cited by 21
Automatic Classification of Containment and Support Spatial Relations in English and Dutch
Lockwood, K., Lovett, A., & Forbus, K. (2008) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-87601-4_21 · Cited by 22
Empirical Modelling and the Foundations of Artificial Intelligence
Beynon, M. (1999) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/3-540-48834-0_18 · Cited by 22
Using Games to Understand the MindPreprint
Allen, K. R., Brändle, F., Botvinick, M., et al. (2023) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/hbsvj · Cited by 21
The influence of prior belief on scientific thinking
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2002) · The Cognitive Basis of Science · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511613517.011 · Cited by 22
Towards a Cognitive System that Can Recognize Spatial Regions Based on Context
Hawes, N., Klenk, M., Lockwood, K., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v26i1.8157 · Cited by 21
An Integrated Systems Approach to Explanation-Based Conceptual Change
Friedman, S., & Forbus, K. D. (2010) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v24i1.7572 · Cited by 21
Using Analogies in Teaching Physics: A Study on Latvian Teachers' Views and Experience
Jonāne, L. (2015) · Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability · doi:10.1515/jtes-2015-0011 · Cited by 21
Estes, Z., & Hasson, U. (2004) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.5.1082 · Cited by 21
Crandall, D., & Phillips, F. (2002) · Issues in Accounting Education · doi:10.2308/iace.2002.17.2.163 · Cited by 21
Banaruee, H., Farsani, D., Khatin‐Zadeh, O., et al. (2024) · Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics · doi:10.1515/psicl-2023-0035 · Cited by 21
Rexigel, E., Kühn, J., Becker, S., & Malone, S. (2024) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-024-09958-y · Cited by 56
What Does the Chart Say? Grouping Cues Guide Viewer Comparisons and Conclusions in Bar Charts
Xiong, C., Stokes, C., Lovett, A., & Franconeri, S. (2023) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2023.3289292 · Cited by 20
Shahani, V. M., & Jenkinson, J. (2016) · Chemistry Education Research and Practice · doi:10.1039/c5rp00194c · Cited by 19
Battaglia, O. R., Paola, B. D., & Fazio, C. (2017) · Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education · doi:10.12973/eurasia.2017.01211a · Cited by 20
6 The role of analogy for compound words
Krott, A. (2009) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547548.003.0006 · Cited by 21
Analogies for modeling belief dynamics
Olsson, H., & Galešić, M. (2024) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2024.07.001 · Cited by 24
Analogical Inference Enhanced Knowledge Graph Embedding
Yao, Z., Zhang, W., Chen, M., Huang, Y., Yang, Y., & Chen, H. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i4.25605 · Cited by 18
Patterns of change in design metaphor: a case study
Stubblefield, W. A. (1998) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/274644.274656 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- GENTNER, D.
- Corresponding author
- GENTNER, D
- ORCID
- GENTNER, D
- Venue
- Cognitive Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1983-06
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 155-170
- ISSN
- 0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4229954498
- Cited by
- 816
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 60 · 2025: 55 · 2024: 69 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 5.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Cognitive Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Language, Metaphor, and Cognition
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Keywords
- structure-mapping theory, analogy, analogical reasoning, mapping rules, knowledge representation, systematicity, higher-order relations, abstraction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
