Closed stefanocoretta closed 1 year ago
Of the analyses submitted by the 46 teams, the initiating authors identified analyses from 33 teams to be eligible to be included...
My suggestion:
Of the analyses submitted by the 46 teams, the initiating authors identified 33 teams with submissions meeting the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analytic model.
I just realised now that we could have used the PR review workflow for this... Maybe next time?
Yeah that would have been ideal. I didnĀ“t think of it either. Next time.
"For example, five teams measured f0 in the noun and predicted f0 based on typicality as a categorical predictor. Their standardized effect estimates ranged from -0.35 to 0.19 standard deviations. While these teams in principle measured the same thing, they differed in analytical details of how f0 was operationalized (i.e. mean, minimum, maximum, point or range) and how their statistical model was constructed (i.e. the number of predictors ranged from 1-2 and the number of random effect terms ranged from 1-10)."
@jvcasillas you write: " still don't think the x-axis label for figure 3 makes any sense." that is an uninformative sentence. Can you be more specific ;) Also "RE figure 4, the y-axis labels for plot c are now capitalized. I think this should also be the case for the x-axis labels of 4a and 4b." I cannot see capitalization at all. I will fix it although I am not sure why anymore want capitalization, it makes it harder to read!
@stefanocoretta the sankey diagram in supplentary_materialias.pdf is not the updated one based on the recoded sheet. We should not have many unclear categories for duration on right hand side. Can you look into this?
@stefanocoretta the sankey diagram in supplentary_materialias.pdf is not the updated one based on the recoded sheet. We should not have many unclear categories for duration on right hand side. Can you look into this?
I mentioned this here. I'm pretty sure it was because at the time we still hadn't pulled in the newest version of the google sheet (we were still testing). Should be a simple fix by just rerunning the code.
@jvcasillas you write: " still don't think the x-axis label for figure 3 makes any sense." that is an uninformative sentence. Can you be more specific ;)
Indeed it is, but it wasn't when I mentioned it here š¤£ As is, the x-axis label of figure 3 says "Submitted typicality effect". To me, this indicates that the x-axis should plot a continuous variable, but it doesn't. It plots the team name for every individual model used in the meta-analysis. In fact, I think one could make the argument that "Submitted typicality effect" is actual what is plotted on the y-axis (in grey). In the shiny app I labeled the x-axis as "All models", which isn't ideal either, but seems more informative to me.
While we are talking about figure 3, I also mentioned in the comment referenced above that you preferred we don't use the compelling/not compelling dichotomy (at least not by default) in the shiny app, but we are still doing this in figure 3. Do we still want this?
Also "RE figure 4, the y-axis labels for plot c are now capitalized. I think this should also be the case for the x-axis labels of 4a and 4b." I cannot see capitalization at all. I will fix it although I am not sure why anymore want capitalization, it makes it harder to read!
I'm fine either way, but it should be consistent. I initially pointed it out because I think capitalizing the first letter is pretty common. Whatever everybody wants is šš¼, just needs to be consistent.
I'll go through this tomorrow. Please next time create new issues for individual major points because like this it is difficult to follow, whether comments are informative or not.
In the meantime, @troettge @jvcasillas make sure your repo is up to date, you made pull requests as necessary and all that so that tomorrow we can finalise everything.
I will try to fix the plot related things today. update to follow!
@troettge Are your edits complete? Have you rerun the code to pull the latest coding sheet? Or shall I do that? Shall I re-run other things too? Is the flow plot up to date?
@stefanocoretta I did not rerun, pull or knit. So please run the whole thing!
Thanks! I am glad I asked
Please, have a look at https://github.com/many-speech-analyses/many_analyses/blob/rerun/RR_manuscript/RR_diff.pdf