Study
Opening the study…
Study
Opening the study…
Where the work did something other than what it follows, its registered plan or the claim it replicates, as its author says.
From its pre-registered plan, under plan/
Not stated
Mioni et al. (2016) was available in full but reports per-interval production means only in a figure; it entered with Thones & Oberfeld's Table A2 values (from the then-submitted manuscript), applying the plan's rule for studies whose report gives no per-interval group means.
Bears on C1
Done differently
Ahmadi et al. (2019) report the depression-control production contrast only averaged over targets (5-60 s, all above 3 s), as F(1,28) = 4.34 and d = 0.76, not per target; it entered as one above-3-s effect, with its sign taken from the paper's Figure 1. The plan asked for per-target statistics.
Bears on C1
Not stated
Effect sizes taken from Thones & Oberfeld's Table A2 are uncorrected g (their stated practice); they were not corrected for small samples, while primary extractions were. The correction changes g by about 2%.
Bears on C1
Done differently
The planned secondary analyses (Caceda et al. non-suicidal only; subgroup description) were implemented after the primary run in code/sensitivity.py, together with one post hoc check removing a possibly misprinted row of Mundt et al. (1998). The planned primary-extraction-only sensitivity is reported but uninformative, with one study at 3 s or less.
Bears on C1
Done differently
code/meta.py now writes non-finite numbers (from the degenerate primary-extraction-only fit) as null so results/R1.json is valid JSON; no estimate changed.