Extraction report: buckwalterschaffer2015knowledgestakesmistakes

Summary

• Pipeline outputs: papers/buckwalterschaffer2015knowledgestakesmistakes/out/tables/ is empty (no extracted tables). Numeric results were taken from extracted text/TEI and, where needed for verification, from the PDF via pdftotext/pdfgrep and rendered page images.
• Output YAML: papers/buckwalterschaffer2015knowledgestakesmistakes/buckwalterschaffer2015knowledgestakesmistakes.yaml
• Reproducible computations: papers/buckwalterschaffer2015knowledgestakesmistakes/analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (rendered to effect_sizes.html)
• Effect sizes: d and v are now populated under an explicit equal-cell assumption using esc::esc_mean_sd(...).

Equal-cell assumption used

All studies in this paper are between-subjects, but the article does not report observed per-condition group sizes for the stakes contrasts. For the current coding, I adopted the analyst-authorized equal-cell assumption and computed SMDs from reported means/SDs in the Quarto audit file.

• Study 1 (N = 186, 2x2 stakes x verb): equal allocation across four cells implies an approximate cell size of 46.5. Because actual observed cell counts are unreported and the schema requires integer group.n, the YAML leaves groups[].n as null while the effect-size notes record the 46.5-per-cell assumption.
• Study 2 (N = 80): assumed 40/40.
• Study 3 (N = 100): assumed 50/50.
• Study 4 (N = 60): assumed 30/30.
• Study 5 (N = 100): assumed 50/50.
• Study 6 (N = 120): assumed 60/60.
• Study 7 (N = 240, four independent conditions): assumed 60 participants in each of the four cells, equivalently 60/60 within each reported low-vs-high comparison.

Manual interventions / PDF use

• Used PDF text extraction (pdftotext, pdfgrep) to recover page-numbered quotes for reported means/SDs and test statistics, mostly from footnotes.
• Used rendered page images in papers/buckwalterschaffer2015knowledgestakesmistakes/out/images/pages/ to confirm figure context and scale interpretation.

Remaining issues / notes

• The paper still does not report actual observed integer cell Ns. Current effect sizes therefore depend on the explicit equal-cell assumption above.
• Recruitment source and compensation were not located in the extracted paper materials and remain null.
• Footnote 31 reports t(98) = -0.90, p = 0.93 for the evidence-preface evidence contrast. This appears internally inconsistent. The current effect size for that outcome was computed from the reported means/SDs, so the inconsistency does not block coding.
• Footnote 42 appears to mislabel the second salient-condition test as a knowledge comparison when the surrounding means indicate it is the evidence comparison. The YAML retains the possible_reporting_error quality flag for that effect.