Extraction report — buckwalter2014themysterofstakes

What the pipeline produced

• papers/buckwalter2014themysterofstakes/out/bundle.json shows no extracted tables (out/tables/ empty); numeric condition summaries were therefore not available from out/tables/*.
• papers/buckwalter2014themysterofstakes/out/tei.xml, out/fulltext.md, and out/text.txt contained most prose, but the TEI figure caption for the bank-condition descriptives was truncated (missing the final assertion cell).

Manual interventions (required / performed)

Used the PDF directly (documented per instructions)

Because tables were missing and one TEI caption was truncated, I consulted papers/buckwalter2014themysterofstakes/pdf/paper.pdf via text extraction to recover analysis-critical values: - PDF p.10: sample size line (N=215), scale anchors (1=false … 5=true), and vignette text used for moderator coding. - PDF p.15–16: typo vignette + prompt wording for moderator coding. - PDF p.25: full set of bank-condition means/SDs (including the missing High Error/High Stakes assertion cell). - PDF p.26: typo-condition means/SDs + ANOVA F/df.

These values are cited in papers/buckwalter2014themysterofstakes/buckwalter2014themysterofstakes.yaml with provenance.page pointing to the PDF page number.

Key problems / uncertainties

1) Bibliographic details (paper-level)

The PDF lacks clear front-matter bibliographic metadata (editors/publisher/DOI). paper.year was set to 2014 based on filename/repo context.

Human fill-in - paper.citation (full): ___ - paper.year (confirm): ___ - paper.published (confirm Yes/No): ___ - paper.doi (if any): ___

2) Split Ns not reported, but analyzed N can be recovered

For both experiments, the paper does not report per-condition Ns. However, the analyzed total N can be recovered from the paper’s exclusion notes and confirmed from the omnibus ANOVA denominator df:

• Study 1: page 10 reports N = 215; page 25 footnote 10 says 30 participants were removed; omnibus tests are reported as F(1,177), which in an 8-cell between-subject design implies analyzed N = 185 = 177 + 8.
• Study 2: page 16 reports 100 participants; page 26 footnote 18 says 10 were removed; omnibus tests are reported as F(1,86), which in a 4-cell between-subject design implies analyzed N = 90 = 86 + 4.

Under the analyst-authorized equal-cell assumption already used elsewhere in the repo, this is sufficient to compute d and v from the reported means/SDs. I therefore added numeric effect sizes and documented the assumption in papers/buckwalter2014themysterofstakes/analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.

Equal-cell allocations used:

• Study 1 bank effects: 185 / 8 = 23.125 per cell, so each low-vs-high stakes contrast within fixed error/speech-act uses n_low = n_high = 23.125.
• Study 2 typo knowledge effect: 90 / 4 = 22.5 per cell, so the low-vs-high stakes knowledge contrast uses n_low = n_high = 22.5.

3) Study 2 recruitment/compensation not reported

The bank study explicitly mentions MTurk + Qualtrics; the typo study only reports "100 participants" and does not specify recruitment/compensation in the extracted text.

Human fill-in - Study 2 recruitment source (mTurk? students? other?): ___ - Study 2 compensation details (if any): ___

4) Denial vs assertion direction (analysis decision)

Study 1 includes both knowledge assertions and knowledge denials. The extraction keeps them as separate effects and notes that denial truth judgments may need reverse-scoring depending on the meta-analytic construct.

Human fill-in - Should denial effects be (a) excluded, (b) included as-is, or (c) reverse-scored to align with knowledge-ascription direction? ___