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 501–600 of 884
Integration of event experiences to build relational knowledge in the human brainPreprint
Leshinskaya, A., Nguyen, M., & Ranganath, C. (2022) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2022.11.17.516960 · Cited by 2
Analogies for modeling belief dynamicsPreprint
Olsson, H., & Galešić, M. (2023) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/bpj97 · Cited by 2
Gountas, J., & Moraes, M. (2024) · Qeios · doi:10.32388/sz5zyz · Cited by 2
Evidence from formal logical reasoning reveals that the language of thought is not natural language
Kean, H., Fung, A., Jaggers, P., Chen, J., Rule, J. S., Benn, Y., Tenenbaum, J. B., Piantadosi, S. T., Varley, R. A., & Fedorenko, E. (2026) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2520095123 · Cited by 2
Studying Ideation in Engineering Design
Pace, P. W., Wood, K. L., Wood, J. J., Jensen, D., & Skibba, B. (2020) · ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition · doi:10.18260/1-2--18857 · Cited by 1
Μάθηση αντι-διαισθητικών εξηγήσεων υπό το πρίσμα της εννοιολογικής αλλαγής
Σκοπελίτη, Ε. (2022) · Psychology the Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society · doi:10.12681/psyhps.30692 · Cited by 1
University management perspectives: A systematic literature review through bibliometrix
Mosquera-Guerrero, A., & Quiñonez, E. E. E. (2022) · Revista Boletín Redipe · doi:10.36260/rbr.v11i11.1911 · Cited by 1
Hesse, J. (2023) · Theoria · doi:10.1111/theo.12481 · Cited by 1
A cognitive perspective on basic generic metaphors and their specific-level realizations
Khatin‐Zadeh, O., Banaruee, H., & Yazdani‐Fazlabadi, B. (2022) · Polish Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.24425/ppb.2022.141133 · Cited by 1
The Effectiveness of Analogy Learning as a Learning Practice Condition in Primary Physical Education
Ellul, M., & Bezzina, A. (2023) · Malta Journal of Education · doi:10.62695/zsnv3229 · Cited by 1
Nückles, M. (2024) · Unterrichtswissenschaft · doi:10.1007/s42010-024-00213-5 · Cited by 1
Hicks, M. D. (2024) · Educational Studies in Mathematics · doi:10.1007/s10649-024-10345-1 · Cited by 7
D’Angelo, V. S. (2024) · Studies in Psychology Estudios de Psicología · doi:10.1177/02109395241274656 · Cited by 1
Torii, T., Maeda, A., & Hidaka, S. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0312151 · Cited by 1
The influence of affective analogies on students’ affect for chemistry learning and attitudes
Vieira, H., & Morais, C. S. L. (2025) · Journal of Turkish Science Education · doi:10.36681/tused.2025.008 · Cited by 1
Intuit: Explain Quantum Computing Concepts via AR-based Analogy
Karunathilaka, M., Ruan, S., Yuan, L.-P., et al. (2025) · Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3706599.3720085 · Cited by 1
Analogies and Analogue Thinking in Teaching Learning Interdisciplinary Mathematical Models
Gago, E. A., Szekieta, P. A., & D’alessandro, L. I. (2025) · WSEAS TRANSACTIONS ON ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION · doi:10.37394/232010.2025.22.6 · Cited by 1
Food for Thought: An Analogy for Digital Sovereignty in Education
Ruiz-García, A., & Hernández‐Leo, D. (2025) · Proceedings. · doi:10.22318/icls2025.959463 · Cited by 1
Reasoning through uncertainty: expert chemists’ analogical thinking on a novel problem
Bergeron, K., Turner, D. P., & Hammer, D. (2025) · Chemistry Education Research and Practice · doi:10.1039/d5rp00102a · Cited by 4
Su, M., Michelene, T. H., & Nagashima, T. (2025) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1080/10508406.2025.2546471 · Cited by 1
Rusconi, M., Secchi, D., & Seri, R. (2025) · Journal of Economic Methodology · doi:10.1080/1350178x.2025.2547639 · Cited by 1
Climbing the validity ladder: a multi-criteria framework for evaluating model organisms
Athéa, H., & Heck, N. (2025) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-025-05403-x · Cited by 1
Visualising quantum entanglement using interactive electronic quantum dice
Folkers, B., van Rossum, A., Brinkman, A., & Stadermann, K. (2026) · Physics Education · doi:10.1088/1361-6552/ae43aa · Cited by 3
A discourse category model of register representation and processing
Keller, D. (2025) · Register Studies · doi:10.1075/rs.24027.kel · Cited by 1
Petcovic, H. L., McNeal, P., Reeves, D. M., et al. (2026) · Journal of Geoscience Education · doi:10.1080/10899995.2026.2654375 · Cited by 1
Beyond symbolic algebra with quantum picturalism
Dündar‐Coecke, S., Yeh, L., Pothos, E., Waseem, M. H., & Coecke, B. (2026) · Frontiers in Cognition · doi:10.3389/fcogn.2026.1790789 · Cited by 1
Inspiration Seeds: Learning Non-Literal Visual Combinations for Generative Exploration
Goldberg, K., Richardson, E., & Vinker, Y. (2026) · ACM SIGGRAPH Conference (SIGGRAPH) · doi:10.1145/3799902.3811121 · Cited by 1
Hacia una evolución de la concepción de analogía: aplicación al análisis de libros de texto
González, J. F., González, B. M. G., & Jiménez, T. M. (2005) · Enseñanza de las Ciencias Revista de investigación y experiencias didácticas · doi:10.5565/rev/ensciencias.3856 · Cited by 1
Desfazendo dicotomias em torno da metáfora
Moura, H. (2008) · Revista de Estudos da Linguagem · doi:10.17851/2237-2083.16.1.179-200 · Cited by 1
Two kinds of non-monotonic analogical inference
Kerber, M., & Melis⋆, E. (1996) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/3-540-61313-7_86 · Cited by 1
Toward Simulating the Human Way of Comparing Concepts
Menéndez-Mora, R. E., & Ichise, R. (2011) · IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems · doi:10.1587/transinf.e94.d.1419 · Cited by 1
Modelización de ítems de matrices figurales y pautas específicas propuestas para su construcción
Blum, G. D., Lozzia, G. S., Abal, F. J. P., et al. (2015) · Anales de Psicología · doi:10.6018/analesps.31.2.174891 · Cited by 1
Measuring the Structural and Conceptual Similarity of Folktales using Plot Graphs
Lestari, V. A., & Manurung, H. (2015) · doi:10.18653/v1/w15-3704 · Cited by 1
Kara, İ. (2014) · Pamukkale University Journal of Education · doi:10.9779/puje617 · Cited by 1
Oriola, O., & Ola, A. F. (2014) · International Journal of Applied Information Systems · doi:10.5120/ijais14-451216 · Cited by 1
Rules of Thumb: An Experiment in Contextual Transposition
Taylor, D., Büscher, M., Murray, L. J., et al. (2016) · Proceedings of DRS · doi:10.21606/drs.2016.178 · Cited by 1
Walde, S. S. I., Köper, M., & Springorum, S. (2018) · Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics · doi:10.18653/v1/s18-2003 · Cited by 1
Rereading Jean Lave 30 years on: Analogy and transfer-in-pieces
Hansen, S. B. (2020) · Nordic Studies in Education · doi:10.23865/nse.v40.2125 · Cited by 1
Future teachers’ spontaneous use of analogies in explaining concepts
Pavlović, Z., & Каурин, С. (2018) · Zbornik Instituta za pedagoska istrazivanja · doi:10.2298/zipi1802229p · Cited by 1
Analogics and its Cognitive Efficiency
Kim, J. (2019) · International Journal of Computational Linguistics Research · doi:10.6025/jcl/2019/10/2/50-56 · Cited by 1
Exploring continuity equation via a modeling activity: in the context of crowd science
Yüksel, T., Tekbıyık, A., & Erümit, B. A. (2020) · Science Activities · doi:10.1080/00368121.2020.1782314 · Cited by 1
Martins, D. M., Mozzer, N. B., Oliveira, T. M. A., et al. (2020) · Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências · doi:10.28976/1984-2686rbpec2020u823854 · Cited by 1
Passive European Union Influence
Lenz, T. (2021) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198823827.003.0006 · Cited by 1
Stahl, C. C., Rau, M. A., & Greenberg, J. A. (2023) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-023-09630-y · Cited by 2
DEVELOPMENT OF TEACHING MATERIAL WITH BRIDGING ANALOGY: LESSON PLAN & MODULE
Gita, F., Putri, F. M., & Dwirahayu, G. (2023) · ALGORITMA Journal of Mathematics Education · doi:10.15408/ajme.v4i2.28861 · Cited by 1
Cognitive and Perceptual Computing
Colombo, M. (2023) · Fuzzy management methods · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-42819-7_3 · Cited by 1
Cross-modal iconicity in songs about weeping
Bonifazi, A. (2023) · Semiotica · doi:10.1515/sem-2022-0100 · Cited by 1
Nugraha, D. S. (2023) · International Journal of Social Science and Human Research · doi:10.47191/ijsshr/v6-i11-41 · Cited by 1
Nugraha, D. S. (2023) · International Journal of Innovative Research in Multidisciplinary Education · doi:10.58806/ijirme.2023.v2i11n07 · Cited by 1
Moving Figures and Grounds in music description
Wadley, P., Tenbrink, T., & Wallington, A. M. (2024) · Cognitive Linguistics · doi:10.1515/cog-2022-0065 · Cited by 1
La superficialité de l’évocation analogique : par défaut ou à défaut ?
Raynal, L., Sander, E., & Clément, É. (2024) · L’Année psychologique · doi:10.3917/anpsy1.241.0137 · Cited by 1
Ergonomia degli artefatti cognitivi
Bagnara, S. (1993) · Quaderni di Sociologia · doi:10.4000/qds.5926 · Cited by 1
Katz, A. N. (2024) · Discourse Processes · doi:10.1080/0163853x.2024.2319898 · Cited by 1
Analogical arguments in geology
Kravitz, G. (2022) · Forestry Research and Engineering International Journal · doi:10.15406/freij.2022.05.00101 · Cited by 1
Zooming in and out of semantics: proximal–distal construal levels and prominence hierarchies
Lobben, M., & Laeng, B. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1371538 · Cited by 1
Accessing distant analogues over surface matches: How efficient is our retrieval system?
Trench, M., Tavernini, L. M., & Minervino, R. A. (2024) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218241308032 · Cited by 1
Peng, S., Komatsuzaki, S., & Sen, R. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0318122 · Cited by 3
唐, 耀. (2025) · Advances in Education · doi:10.12677/ae.2025.155840 · Cited by 1
Two pathways to resolve relational inconsistencies
Barak, T., & Loewenstein, Y. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-16135-w · Cited by 1
Understanding how prototypes are interpreted: A structural model of final product interpretation
Mitomi, K., & Shirasaka, S. (2025) · The Design Journal · doi:10.1080/14606925.2025.2572084 · Cited by 1
Jurásová, K. I., Biela, A., & Špajdel, M. (2014) · Studia Psychologica · doi:10.21909/sp.2014.02.653 · Cited by 1
Mareschal, D., Leech, R., & Cooper, R. (2009) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195300598.003.0010 · Cited by 1
A NeuroCognitive Approach to Decision-Making in Chance Discovery
Tung, W. L., & Quek, C. H. (2006) · Studies in computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-34353-0_14 · Cited by 1
Procedural Similarity and Its Effect on Transfer
Saifaddin, H. B. (2014) · Advances in intelligent systems research/Advances in Intelligent Systems Research · doi:10.2991/icassr-14.2014.1 · Cited by 1
Analogies in physics textbooks for the final grade of primary school
Pavlović, Z. (2016) · Zbornik Instituta za pedagoska istrazivanja · doi:10.2298/zipi1601070p · Cited by 1
Here and Now: Mapping Space and Time in a Four-Part Frame of Reference Typology
Danziger, E. (2013) · Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society · doi:10.3765/bls.v39i1.3891 · Cited by 1
Le jeu de scène: traductions et traducteurs à travers les cultures et les genres littéraires
Mihalache, I. (2021) · Linguistica Antverpiensia New Series – Themes in Translation Studies · doi:10.52034/lanstts.v4i.132 · Cited by 1
METAPHORIC INVESTIGATION OF TARGET CONCEPT: VENUS STAR CASE
Gültekin, T., Yildiz, E., & BAHADIR, A. (2016) · Idil Journal of Art and Language · doi:10.7816/idil-05-26-13 · Cited by 1
How to Blend Concepts and Influence People: Computational Models of Conceptual Integration
Veale, T. (2007) · Theoria et Historia Scientiarum · doi:10.12775/ths.2002.016 · Cited by 1
L’analogie entre la langue française et la chimie : analyse linguistique et didactique
Dehon, J., & Snauwaert, P. (2018) · Éducation & didactique · doi:10.4000/educationdidactique.3161 · Cited by 1
Examining Children’s Simile Comprehension Skills
Bayat, N., & Kuz, E. (2020) · Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences · doi:10.18844/cjes.v15i3.4911 · Cited by 1
Analogical mapping of ỌKỤKỌ proverbs in Ideke lect
Aruah, V. O., Eze, J. U., ARUAH-BUCHI, S. N., et al. (2020) · Indian Journal of Language and Linguistics · doi:10.34256/ijll2013 · Cited by 1
PROFIL ANALOGICAL REASONING SISWA SMA
Sholihah, R. (2021) · INKUIRI Jurnal Pendidikan IPA · doi:10.20961/inkuiri.v10i1.39484 · Cited by 1
Las representaciones conceptuales en la ciencia cognitiva
Destéfano, M. N. (2021) · Quaderns de Filosofia · doi:10.7203/qfia.8.1.15786 · Cited by 1
OLD ENGLISH SWA SIMILES: STRUCTURE OVERVIEW
Oleniak, M. (2021) · Ezikov svât/Ezikov svât · doi:10.37708/ezs.swu.bg.v19i3.2 · Cited by 1
La habilidad de modelar conectivas lógicas en diferentes dominios
D’Angelo, V. S. (2021) · Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnología en Educación y Educación en Tecnología · doi:10.24215/18509959.30.e8 · Cited by 1
Thinking Analogy in Solving Indirect Analogy Problems based on Information Processing Theory
Kristayulita, K., & Sucipto, L. (2022) · Prisma Sains Jurnal Pengkajian Ilmu dan Pembelajaran Matematika dan IPA IKIP Mataram · doi:10.33394/j-ps.v10i1.4574 · Cited by 1
Case-Based Learning: Predictive Features in Indexing
Seifert, C. M., Hammond, K. J., Johnson, H. M., et al. (1994) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1022678818081 · Cited by 1
Concepts: Fodor's little semantic BBs of thought A critical look at Fodor's theory of concepts
Dietrich, E. (2001) · Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1080/09528130110052841 · Cited by 1
Scaffolding Visual Comparison Through Spatial Alignment
Simms, N. K. (2019) · American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting (AERA) · doi:10.3102/1442573 · Cited by 1
Estudios sobre comprensión y control de la comprensión en resolución de problemas académicos
Gómez-Ferragud, C., López, V. S., & Portolés, J. J. S. (2016) · Revista de Enseñanza de la Física · doi:10.55767/2451.6007.v28.n1.14685 · Cited by 1
Economía colaborativa y sosteniblidad: análisis bibliométrico
Vivas-Moncada, V., García-Mendoza, J. O., & Orjuela-Abril, M. S. (2021) · Mundo FESC · doi:10.61799/2216-0388.1123 · Cited by 1
Metodos para estimulo a criatividade e sua aplicação em arquitetura
Bianchi, G. D. O. (2008) · doi:10.47749/t/unicamp.2008.427435 · Cited by 1
Bahr, M., & Bahr, N. (2008) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-3024-6_5 · Cited by 1
A Computational Analysis Model for Open-ended Cognitions
Morita, J., & Miwa, K. (2005) · Transactions of the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1527/tjsai.20.306 · Cited by 1
Two types of thought: Evidence from aphasia
Davidoff, J. B. (2005) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x05290015 · Cited by 1
Learning Domain Theories via Analogical Transfer
Klenk, M., & Forbus, K. D. (2007) · doi:10.21236/ada470404 · Cited by 1
Analogical Reinforcement Learning
Foster, J. M., & Jones, M. (2013) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e505772014-087 · Cited by 1
A Framework for Early Design Process Stages Based on an Analogy to Evolution
Rogers, D. A. S. (2021) · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14660331.v1 · Cited by 1
La esponsorización deportiva: factores que influyen en su efectividad
Agüera, M. D. L. S. Z. (2018) · Digital Repository (Polytechnic University of Cartagena) · doi:10.31428/10317/7610 · Cited by 1
Abstract and Concrete Representations in Structure-Mapping and Class-Inclusion
Banaruee, H. (2018) · Psychology and Behavioral Science International Journal · doi:10.19080/pbsij.2018.08.555735 · Cited by 1
Otieno, H. (2018) · Sheffield Hallam University · doi:10.7190/shu-thesis-00153 · Cited by 1
Culture, Lay Science, and Analogies: Westerners think X -> Y, Easterners think X :: Y
Gilbert, E. A. (2016) · doi:10.18130/v34g4w · Cited by 1
Analogia e argumentação no debate parlamentar: o caso da criminalização da LGBTfobia
Ferreira, F. M. (2019) · doi:10.11606/t.8.2019.tde-27022019-134324 · Cited by 1
Analogical Reasoning as an Inference SchemePreprint
Walliser, B., Zwirn, D., & Zwirn, H. (2021) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-170739/v1 · Cited by 1
Fuyama, M., Saigo, H., & Takahashi, T. (2020) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/zp3jq · Cited by 1
Culture, lay science, and analogies: Westerners think X -> Y, Easterners think X :: YPreprint
Gilbert, E. A. (2017) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/v3dnr · Cited by 1
Plausible Justification Trees: A Framework for Deep and Dynamic Integration of Learning Strategies
Tecuci, G. D. (1993) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1022613504336 · Cited by 1
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
