Extraction report: shin2014timeconstraintspragmatic

Summary

• Extracted four fixed-time stakes contrasts from a paper whose main reported analyses are about time constraints, not stakes.
• Primary evidence used: paper.yaml, out/bundle.json, out/fulltext.md, out/text.txt, and out/tei.xml.
• Raw PDF was not used.
• Reproducible computations are documented in papers/shin2014timeconstraintspragmatic/analysis/effect_sizes.qmd and rendered to papers/shin2014timeconstraintspragmatic/analysis/effect_sizes.html.

What was extracted

• Experiment 1 provides a low-stakes time contrast in the body text and a high-stakes time contrast partially recovered through TEI figure caption fig_1.
• Experiment 2 provides a high-stakes time contrast in the body text and an additional low-stakes time contrast only in footnote 32.
• To obtain meta-analytic high-vs-low stakes effects, I split the paper into four study records by holding time fixed:
• Experiment 1, Less-Time
• Experiment 1, More-Time
• Experiment 2, Less-Time
• Experiment 2, More-Time

Problems and uncertainties

Issue 1: Stakes effects are reconstructed, not directly reported

• The paper reports time effects within low-stakes and high-stakes variants, but it does not report direct high-vs-low stakes tests at fixed time.
• I therefore reconstructed four between-subjects stakes contrasts from reported group summaries and computed d/v in analysis/effect_sizes.qmd.

Human analyst response: [If you disagree with using fixed-time reconstructed stakes contrasts as meta-analytic units, specify which of the four contrasts should be excluded.]

Issue 2: Experiment 1 high-stakes summaries come from TEI figure-caption artifact fig_1

• The processed outputs did not preserve the high-stakes Experiment 1 numeric summary as clean body text.
• The values HS-LT: N = 39, Mean = 4.23, SD = 1.55 and HS-MT: N = 43, Mean = 2.92, SD = 1.98 were recovered from out/tei.xml figure caption fig_1.
• I marked the relevant group provenance with table_ref: fig_1.

Human analyst response: [If you want a second-pass confirmation against the PDF for the Experiment 1 high-stakes summary, note it here.]

Issue 3: Experiment 2 low-stakes pair is only summarized in footnote 32

• The low-stakes Peter pair is reported only as a short footnote summary:
• Peter-Low-Stakes-Less-Time: N = 34, Mean = 1.85, SD = 0.857
• Peter-Low-Stakes-More-Time: N = 35, Mean = 2.71, SD = 1.29
• The full low-stakes Peter vignette text is not recovered in the pipeline outputs; only the low-stakes comprehension probe survives in the appendix: It isn't important that Peter has no typos in his paper. Even if there are some typos, it won't matter much.
• Because of that, I set effect_size.needs_review: true for the two Experiment 2 effects and left moderators.awareness: null there.

Human analyst response: [If you can supply the full low-stakes Peter vignette wording from the PDF or another source, place it here for a second-pass extraction.]

Validation

• YAML was validated against docs/stakes_meta_schema.json.
• Extraction HTML can be rendered with invoke render-extraction shin2014timeconstraintspragmatic.

Feasibility call

The paper is conditionally feasible for inclusion in a stakes meta-analysis, but not as a clean primary stakes study.

• Experiment 1 is usable with moderate confidence because both low- and high-stakes condition summaries are recoverable and the stakes contrasts are numerically unambiguous.
• Experiment 2 is weaker because the low-stakes pair is only summarized in footnote 32 and the full low-stakes vignette wording is not recovered in pipeline outputs.

My recommendation is:

• include the Experiment 1 reconstructed stakes contrasts in the main dataset only if your protocol allows fixed-time post hoc stakes contrasts from factorial condition summaries;
• treat the Experiment 2 contrasts as sensitivity-only unless a human analyst confirms the missing low-stakes vignette wording from the PDF.