Extraction report: wundfolkspuristspragmatic

What I processed

Target PDF: inbox/Wu_2023.pdf
Ingested + processed to: papers/wundfolkspuristspragmatic/

Evidence sources used (pipeline outputs first)

papers/wundfolkspuristspragmatic/out/tables/* for counts/percentages (used for all extracted effects).
papers/wundfolkspuristspragmatic/out/fulltext.md and papers/wundfolkspuristspragmatic/out/tei.xml for study descriptions and quotes.
Rendered page images (pipeline output) used to confirm bibliographic details on the first page (e.g., journal year/volume/pages): papers/wundfolkspuristspragmatic/out/images/pages/p001.png.

Computations

Computed d and v from exact 2×2 count tables (stakes × knowledge attribution) using esc::esc_2x2 (OR -> d) in:
papers/wundfolkspuristspragmatic/analysis/effect_sizes.qmd
Rendered output: papers/wundfolkspuristspragmatic/analysis/effect_sizes.html

Recoding decision — paradigm classification

Updated on 2026-04-21: for analytic purposes, all three Wu experiments are now coded as Agreement with knowledge claim rather than Other.
This includes:
Experiment 1 and Experiment 2, where the raw response options jointly combine knowledge attribution and action/rechecking content;
Experiment 3, where the binary choice is phrased as knows without checking vs does not know without checking.
The rationale for the recode is analytic rather than taxonomic: in all three experiments, the extracted effect size is ultimately a knowledge-attribution contrast, and the project decision was to treat these studies as direct knowledge-attribution variants in the meta-analysis.
This coding decision should be disclosed in the manuscript/reporting text if paradigm definitions are discussed.

Issues / uncertainties for human review

1) Airport vignette: evidence source missing in extracted text (moderators)

The extracted outputs summarize the Airport cases’ stakes but do not specify what evidence the protagonist has for the key proposition (e.g., ticket/itinerary/testimony/memory/observation). This blocks moderator coding for:

effects[].moderators.evidence (First Person vs External)
potentially effects[].moderators.evidence_reliability

Impacted effects: - Study 1: s1_e2 - Study 2: s2_e2 - Study 3: s3_e2

Answer here (what is the evidence source in the Airport vignette, and is any reliability cue present?):

ANSWER:

2) Spelling/Typos vignette: evidence source missing in extracted text (moderators)

Similarly, the extracted outputs summarize stakes for the Spelling cases but do not specify the protagonist’s evidence source for the proposition (or any explicit reliability cue).

Impacted effects: - Study 1: s1_e3 - Study 2: s2_e3 - Study 3: s3_e3

Answer here (what is the evidence source in the Spelling/Typos vignette, and is any reliability cue present?):

ANSWER:

3) Skeptical-pressure coding for the Bank vignette

I coded skeptical_pressure: "Yes" for the Bank vignette because the vignette text includes an explicit alternative possibility (“Many banks are closed on Saturdays…”), but this is not the canonical “another character raises doubt” skeptical-pressure manipulation used in some other bank-case papers.

Impacted effects: - Study 1: s1_e1 - Study 2: s2_e1 - Study 3: s3_e1

Answer here (should “Many banks are closed on Saturdays” be coded as skeptical pressure under this project’s rules?):

ANSWER:

4) Publication year choice (2025 vs online-first year)

I set paper.year: 2025 based on the first page header showing Episteme (2025), volume 22, pages 304–332. The DOI includes “2023”, and the paper may have been available online earlier.

Answer here (preferred year coding rule for this project: issue year vs online-first year?):

ANSWER: