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

Extraction report: turrindepistemiccontextualismidle

Pipeline notes

  • Followed the pipeline outputs in papers/turrindepistemiccontextualismidle/out/ (bundle.json, tables CSVs, fulltext/text, TEI).
  • Initial extraction did not consult the raw PDF directly. A follow-up effect-size audit consulted pdf/paper.pdf via pdftotext and rendered pages to verify that Experiment 4 (bank) reports no d, while the flight replication reports d = 0.34.

Key extraction choices

  • Created one studies[] entry per experiment + each conceptual replication (8 total).
  • Extracted one primary effect per study (the “Know”/knowledge-related DV for Experiments 1–3 and the evidence-threshold DV for Experiment 4).
  • Used d = mean(low) - mean(high) as the default sign convention for Low vs High contrasts.
  • For Experiment 2 (deferral), stakes are held constant; the contrast is Yes (“I do know”) vs No (“I don’t know”) and uses d = mean(yes) - mean(no) (documented in the YAML as sign_convention: other).

Problems / uncertainties (needs human input)

[FIELD] Paper publication details

The extracted outputs identify this as a “penultimate version … to appear in Australasian Journal of Philosophy” and do not provide the final publication year, volume/issue/pages, or DOI.

Please fill: - Final published citation (journal details) and DOI (if any) - Publication year - Whether to code paper.published as Yes/No

Effect-size update

  • analysis/effect_sizes.qmd was rebuilt to use esc::esc_mean_sd for between-group computations.
  • Experiment 4 (bank; Study 7) reports total N=99, group means/SDs, and t(97), but not split condition Ns and not d. Per analyst instruction, d/v are now computed using the equal-N assumption n_low=n_high=99/2.
  • The Study 7 equal-N estimate is d=-0.161379553952, v=0.040535572527. Checking the two possible integer splits (49/50 and 50/49) changes v by about 0.000004, so the assumption is practically negligible for the variance.

Minor extraction issues (handled)

  • tabula_stream_p15_t4.csv (Study 4; Conceptual replication of Experiment 2) appears to mis-extract the MD value for the “Know” row (listed as -0.68 despite means 4.54 vs 4.61 and CI centered near -0.07). Effect size was computed from means/SDs + split Ns instead.
  • tabula_stream_p9_t1.csv (Study 1) shows an implausible df for “Belief” (1765); this row was not used for the extracted effect.