Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Redacted

PaperPDF from arXiv

data files

Paper breakdownThe authors' claims, conditions and measurements, as JSON Signed receiptProof this review has not been altered
X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit Hacker News
Sanjana Shankar

Neurons and Cognition · Submitted 16 Jun 2025

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim arXiv admin comment: This version has been removed by arXiv administrators as the submitter did not have the rights to agree to the license at the time of submission

how it is stated · asserted 0.97 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID2506.17293 (version 1)
Pith ID43W7NEES, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationSanjana Shankar. "Redacted." arXiv:2506.17293 (2025). https://pith.science/paper/43W7NEES
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 1,607 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.02 · states limitation 0.15 · human participants 0.15 · controlled comparison 0.04 · randomized assignment 0.02 · states quantitative result 0.02 · compares with prior results 0.03 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

arXiv admin comment: This version has been removed by arXiv administrators as the submitter did not have the rights to agree to the license at the time of submission

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 arXiv admin comment: This version has been removed by arXiv administrators as the submitter did not have the rights to agree to the license at the time of submission background 0.56 0.05 0.01 asserted 0.97

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: position or commentary 0.99 · evidence from argument 0.77.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v1
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

arXiv admin comment: This version has been removed by arXiv administrators as the submitter did not have the rights to agree to the license at the time of submission

Human review

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

How the literature uses it

Papers whose main result relates to this one's

How each label was checked · JSON

Found among the papers closest to this one by title and main claim. Pith's classifier compared each pair's main results and a second model family confirmed the relation; checked against two further families, shown conflicts agreed 118 times in 120 and shown same results 218 times in 239. The quoted sentence is the other paper's main claim.

States the same result 1 paper
  • arXiv admin note: This version removed by arXiv administrators as the submitter did not have the right to agree to the license at the time of submission

    Title Redacted · 0.86

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.