dingeszakkou2019muchstakeknowledge
Back to paper
Download · Edit · History · Raw
/data/papers/dingeszakkou2019muchstakeknowledge/REPORT.md
Rendered Markdown.

Extraction report: dingeszakkou2019muchstakeknowledge

Pipeline inputs used (in priority order)

  • papers/dingeszakkou2019muchstakeknowledge/out/bundle.json
  • papers/dingeszakkou2019muchstakeknowledge/out/fulltext.md
  • papers/dingeszakkou2019muchstakeknowledge/out/text.txt
  • papers/dingeszakkou2019muchstakeknowledge/out/tei.xml (for citation/DOI/volume)
  • papers/dingeszakkou2019muchstakeknowledge/out/tables/tabula_stream_p13_t1.csv was inspected but not needed for the extracted stakes effects.
  • Direct PDF verification via pdftotext -layout papers/dingeszakkou2019muchstakeknowledge/pdf/paper.pdf - was used to confirm the printed means/SDs, the reported Tukey HSD d values, and the Study 3 means inconsistency.

Reproducible computations

  • Recomputed pairwise between-groups SMDs (d) and sampling variances (v) for Study 1 and Study 2 from the published Neutral/Stakes group descriptives via esc::esc_mean_sd in papers/dingeszakkou2019muchstakeknowledge/analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.
  • Retained Study 3 d from the paper and recomputed only v from reported d + t(df) in papers/dingeszakkou2019muchstakeknowledge/analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.
  • Added a denominator check in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd showing that the paper's reported Tukey HSD d values for Studies 1-2 align with the omnibus three-group residual SD rather than the pairwise pooled SD used for standard between-groups SMDs.

Issues / uncertainties

FIELD: STUDY_1_2_REPORTED_D_NOT_USED_FOR_META_ANALYSIS

Problem: The paper reports Tukey HSD effect sizes for Studies 1-2 (d = .50 and d = 1.06), but these do not equal the ordinary pairwise SMD implied by the published Neutral/Stakes means, SDs, and inferred cell Ns.

What I did: I abandoned the paper-reported d values for the meta-analytic effect_size field in Studies 1-2 and recomputed standard pairwise SMDs from the two-group descriptives: - Study 1: d = 0.572183831390, v = 0.041228607181 - Study 2: d = 0.928919454942, v = 0.043879582512

I kept the paper values under reported_test.reported_d for provenance and documented the decision in effect_size.notes.

Human action needed: None unless the project explicitly prefers Tukey-standardized effect sizes over pairwise pooled-SD SMDs for meta-analysis.

FIELD: STUDY_1_2_REPORTED_D_DENOMINATOR_CHECK

Problem: It was unclear whether the discrepancy between the paper's reported d values and the simple two-group SMD reflected a transcription error or a different denominator.

What I did: I added a denominator check in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd. For both studies, the reported d is closely reproduced by dividing the Neutral/Stakes mean difference by the omnibus three-group residual SD from the ANOVA, not by the pairwise pooled SD: - Study 1: pairwise d ≈ 0.572, omnibus-residual d ≈ 0.497, reported d = 0.50 - Study 2: pairwise d ≈ 0.929, omnibus-residual d ≈ 1.054, reported d = 1.06

Human action needed: None. This was treated as sufficient justification to use recomputed pairwise SMDs in the extraction.

FIELD: STUDY_3_GROUP_MEANS_SWAP

Problem: The Study 3 results sentence in the PDF reports STAKES [M = 4.75, SD = 3.63] vs. NEUTRAL (M = .76, SD = 5.28) while also stating higher retraction in STAKES (45% vs 12%) and reporting t(168)=5.74 and d=.88.

What I did: I treated the direction claim plus t(168)=5.74 and d=.88 as the authoritative effect-size inputs; I did not record Study 3 per-condition means/SDs in the YAML (effects[].groups left empty) and retained quality_flags: ["group_means_extraction_inconsistent"].

Human action needed: Optional: if the journal has a correction or supplementary source clarifying the swapped Study 3 labels, the per-condition means/SDs can be added later.

FIELD: PER_CONDITION_NS_INFERRED_STUDY_1_2

Problem: Studies 1-2 do not explicitly list n per condition alongside the composite-score means/SDs in the results text.

What I did: I inferred per-condition Ns from the reported pairwise χ² comparison totals (Study 1: n_neutral=51, n_stakes=50, n_evidence=50; Study 2: n_neutral=51, n_stakes=50, n_evidence=51). These inferred Ns are now used in the Study 1-2 pairwise SMD computations and are recorded in effects[].groups[].n.

Human action needed: Optional: confirm condition Ns from the PDF if a table or supplement later provides them explicitly.

FIELD: EVIDENCE_RELIABILITY_RECODED

Problem: The existing extraction left moderators.evidence_reliability as null for all three effects, but the current instructions require coding the perceived reliability of the epistemic basis whenever it is classifiable from the vignette.

What I did: I recoded evidence_reliability as follows: - Study 1: High (repeated proofreading + dictionary use) - Study 2: Medium (memory + prediction from prior Saturday bank visit, no extra verification) - Study 3: Medium (same bank-memory basis as Study 2)

I also updated the corresponding moderators_coding.evidence_reliability.reason fields to match the current instructions.

Human action needed: None unless the project adopts a different reliability convention for verification procedures versus memory-based inference.

FIELD: PAGE_NUMBERS_MISSING

Problem: The pipeline text/markdown outputs used do not provide reliable PDF page numbers for all extracted quotes.

What I did: Most provenance.page fields remain null.

Human action needed: Optional: map key quotes to PDF page numbers if page-anchored provenance is required later.