ejdrup-2026-dopamine — what each format carries
25 claims, 95 typed relations between them.
One source, three targets. Each row is a relation type the paper’s claim tree uses; each column is what became of it.
| Relation | In the tree | MIRA | OXA | Discourse Graphs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
supports | 28 | cg:supports, under mira:supports | kept | kept |
requires | 20 | cg:requires, neutral | kept | dropped |
tests | 11 | cg:tests, neutral | kept | kept |
entails | 11 | cg:entails, neutral | kept | dropped |
scopes | 8 | cg:scopes, neutral | kept | dropped |
validates | 6 | cg:validates, under mira:supports | kept | kept |
rules-out | 5 | cg:rules-out, under mira:opposes | kept | kept |
dissociates-with | 4 | cg:dissociates-with, neutral | kept | dropped |
interprets | 2 | cg:interprets, neutral | kept | dropped |
What MIRA has no predicate for — and what happens instead
55 of 95 relations (58%) are neither support nor opposition. They are not dropped and not flattened. MIRA imports a Discourse Graphs base schema in which relations are definable, and its AbstractRelationDef is a neutral root — it carries no supporting or opposing commitment — so each is declared in the document with a domain, a range and a description, and the edges are typed by that declaration.
cg:requires(20) — a claim depends on another holdingcg:entails(11) — a hypothesis entails its prediction — the deductive stepcg:scopes(8) — a scope constraint governs another claim’s validitycg:dissociates-with(4) — the source and target jointly establish a dissociation — two claims whose difference across a condition, region, population or measure is itself the finding, neither bearing on the other’s truth (symmetric)cg:interprets(2) — one claim interprets another
Declaring them under mira:supports would have been worse than dropping them: it would assert that a boundary condition is evidence for the claim it limits, which reverses the meaning.
What a reader who knows only core MIRA sees
Every relation keeps its own type — nothing is flattened into supports. 39 of the 94 edges are declared under mira:supports or mira:opposes, so a reader that follows only those two still gets their direction; the reason the edge was drawn is in the declaration rather than lost.
supports(28) — undermira:supportsrequires(20) — neutraltests(11) — neutralentails(11) — neutralscopes(7) — neutralvalidates(6) — undermira:supportsrules-out(5) — undermira:opposesdissociates-with(4) — neutralinterprets(2) — neutral
What MIRA genuinely cannot carry
1 relations are lost. They target * — the claim constrains the paper as a whole rather than another claim. scopes has mira:Claim as its range and MIRA has no paper-level node, so no edge is emitted and none is invented. The paper’s gap-report.md names them.
What no format carries
Verification — that a claim was checked, by what code, against what deposited data, with what result beside the published value. None of the three has a node for it.
This paper’s records: 13 verified, 7 blocked.
Generated by scripts/formats_report.py from the files in exports/, not from the converters’ mapping tables — a table says what a converter intends, the export says what it did.