Extraction report: feltzzarpentine2010knowmattersless

Summary

• Paper key: feltzzarpentine2010knowmattersless
• Pipeline outputs used (preferred sources):
• Extraction index/status: papers/feltzzarpentine2010knowmattersless/out/bundle.json
• Main text (structure/context): papers/feltzzarpentine2010knowmattersless/out/fulltext.md
• Extracted table(s): papers/feltzzarpentine2010knowmattersless/out/tables/tabula_stream_p6_t1.csv (Stanley’s predictions; not used for effect sizes)
• Output YAML: papers/feltzzarpentine2010knowmattersless/feltzzarpentine2010knowmattersless.yaml
• Effect sizes computed in: papers/feltzzarpentine2010knowmattersless/analysis/effect_sizes.qmd (rendered to papers/feltzzarpentine2010knowmattersless/analysis/effect_sizes.html)
• Added missing low–high pairings:
• Study 1: s1_e3 (Low Attributer–High Subject Stakes vs Low Stakes)
• Study 2: s2_e2 (Minimal High Stakes vs Attributer)

Manual interventions / non-pipeline sources (required disclosure)

• The pipeline text outputs did not include complete endnote content (esp. Notes [14]–[16]) and the Appendix stimulus wording with full prompts/scales.
• I therefore consulted the ingested PDF (papers/feltzzarpentine2010knowmattersless/pdf/paper.pdf) via pdftotext to extract:
• Appendix II–V stimulus wording + exact question prompts/scale anchors (used for measures + moderator coding provenance).
• Notes [14] and [16] (used for Experiments 3–4 group means/SDs/t-tests).

Derived quantities / inference notes

• Split group Ns are not always explicitly reported; where needed they were inferred from reported independent-samples t-test dfs and total N statements:
• Study 1 (Experiment 1): solved group Ns across the four conditions using df values in Notes [6]–[8] plus total N=152.
• Study 2 (Experiment 2): solved group Ns across the three conditions using df values in Notes [10]–[11] plus total N=119.
• Study 4 (Experiment 4): derived n_high=n_low=70 from total N=140 and cross-comparison dfs in Notes [16].
• The response scale is reversed relative to most other extractions (1 = Strongly Agree, 7 = Strongly Disagree). For comparability, effect sizes were computed after reverse-scoring the reported means (8 − M), which flips the sign of d while leaving v unchanged. The YAML retains the reported means/SDs but stores the reverse-scored direction in effect_size.d.
• Study 3 (Experiment 3) has a minor consistency issue: the experiment text reports 83 participants, but Notes [14] report t(80) for the key contrast (suggesting N≈82 if df=n1+n2−2). I inferred n_high=42 and n_low=40 from the df pattern across Notes [14] and [16] and flagged s3_e1 as needs_review: true.

Notes / potential limitations

• Study 1’s High vs Low stakes contrast is confounded with skeptical pressure and utterance polarity (High Stakes includes “banks do change their hours” and uses an “I don’t know...” utterance that the authors reverse-scored; see Notes [4]). This is documented in s1_e1.contrast.other_notes and moderator coding.
• Study 1’s s1_e3 contrast is additionally confounded with attribution type (third-person attribution) and includes the skeptical-pressure cue; s2_e2 is also confounded with attribution type (third-person) vs stakes. Both are documented at the effect level in YAML.

Validation / rendering

• YAML schema validation: papers/feltzzarpentine2010knowmattersless/feltzzarpentine2010knowmattersless.yaml validates against docs/stakes_meta_schema.json (via jsonschema).
• Effect-size computations rendered: quarto render papers/feltzzarpentine2010knowmattersless/analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.
• HTML extraction report: re-generate papers/feltzzarpentine2010knowmattersless/feltzzarpentine2010knowmattersless.html via invoke render-extraction feltzzarpentine2010knowmattersless (or the equivalent meta-extract render-extraction).