1{2 "task_id": "F4-conf-03",3 "harmonised": {4 "E1": {5 "value": -35.01,6 "unit": "percent change in the drug-related hospitalisation rate relative to the counterfactual rate",7 "transformation": "100*(exp(b)-1) with b = -0.431 log points -> 100*(exp(-0.431)-1) = -35.01% (printed '% change' row: -35.0%)",8 "harmonisable": true,9 "missing_quantity": null,10 "locator": "arxiv-2609.27732v1 | Table 6 | row 'ATT' | column '5 km' (extract line 36); cross-check: row '% change', column '5 km' (line 40)"11 },12 "E2": {13 "value": 1.96,14 "unit": "percent change in the reemployment probability relative to the control-group mean",15 "transformation": "100*Delta/p with Delta = 1.47 pp and p = 75.0% (control mean) -> 100*1.47/75.0 = 1.96%",16 "harmonisable": true,17 "missing_quantity": null,18 "locator": "arxiv-2606.14621v1 | Table 2 | row 'Reemployment' | columns 'Average treatment effect estimate' (Delta) and 'Control' (p) (extract line 29)"19 },20 "E3": {21 "value": -1.82,22 "unit": "percent change in employment implied for the observed 2023 minimum-wage increase",23 "transformation": "100*eta*g with eta = -0.388 and g = 0.047 (proportional MW change printed in Table 2) -> 100*(-0.388)*0.047 = -1.8236%",24 "harmonisable": true,25 "missing_quantity": null,26 "locator": "arxiv-2505.04555v3 | Table 2 | row 'Employment elasticity w.r.t MW' | column 'Estimate (SE)' (line 50); row '% MW changes' | column 'Estimate (SE)' (line 60)"27 },28 "E4": {29 "value": null,30 "unit": "hospitalisations per 100,000 inhabitants per year",31 "transformation": "Would require R0*(exp(b)-1) with b = -0.354 (relative change -29.81%); R0 is not printed in the extract",32 "harmonisable": false,33 "missing_quantity": "the counterfactual (or pre-opening baseline) level of the fatal drug-related hospitalisation rate per 100,000 inhabitants per year for the treated regions within 5 km (e.g. a pre-treatment mean of the outcome in levels); the extract prints only log-point ATTs and no outcome level",34 "locator": "arxiv-2609.27732v1 | Table 7 | row 'Drug-related (fatal)' | column '5 km' (extract line 86)"35 },36 "E5": {37 "value": -9.62,38 "unit": "percentage points (change in the probability of infant death or stillbirth)",39 "transformation": "100*beta with beta = -0.0962 (0-1 scale) -> -9.62 pp (exact rescaling)",40 "harmonisable": true,41 "missing_quantity": null,42 "locator": "arxiv-2510.03658v1 | Table 3 | row 'Treatment' | column '(4)' (extract line 49)"43 }44 },45 "n_harmonised": 4,46 "n_not_harmonisable": 1,47 "feasibility": "complete",48 "feasibility_reason": null,49 "data_issues": [50 {51 "issue": "Armendariz: the same CS-DR 5 km ATT (-0.431) has standard error (0.210) in Table 6 but (0.218) in Table A19.",52 "handling": "Point estimate identical, so E1 is unaffected; no uncertainty propagated. Recorded only."53 },54 {55 "issue": "Armendariz: Tables 6/7 and the Figure 6 note state 608 never-treated control regions; the Table A19 note states 640.",56 "handling": "Does not enter any transformation; recorded only."57 },58 {59 "issue": "Armendariz: abstract says fatal hospitalisations 'fall by 35%', but the Table 7 5 km estimate -0.354 implies 100*(exp(-0.354)-1) = -29.8%, matching Section 6.1 ('approximately 30% at 5 km'). The abstract figure appears to repeat the overall effect.",60 "handling": "Used the Table 7 coefficient as instructed; E4 target (absolute change) is in any case not reachable."61 },62 {63 "issue": "Armendariz: Figure 7 note mentions 'four diagnostic sub-categories' and the Table 7 note lists ICD codes for four, while five outcomes (incl. fatal) are reported; the definition of the fatal outcome is not given in the extract.",64 "handling": "Recorded; does not affect the harmonised values."65 },66 {67 "issue": "Kanayama: Table 2 note describes the 2023 increase as 'about 4%' while the table row '% MW changes' prints 0.047.",68 "handling": "Used the printed table value 0.047 as the task requires (target definition points to the table). With 0.04 the implied change would be about -1.55%; the 0.047-based -1.82% is consistent with missing+excess jobs (-0.03+0.012 = -0.018) and with the abstract's ~2% decline."69 },70 {71 "issue": "RESEA: abstract rounds the reemployment ATE to 1.5 pp; Table 2 prints 1.47 pp. The 'Control' column is the raw aggregate control mean, not a block-adjusted counterfactual (the paper notes raw means are confounded by randomisation week).",72 "handling": "Used 1.47 pp and the printed control mean 75.0% as the target definition specifies (percent of control-group mean)."73 },74 {75 "issue": "Tossou: abstract/Section 4.1 headline (0.0855, 18.79 percentage change, mean 0.455) refers to a 'table 2' that is not in the extract and calls a relative change a 'percentage change'; Table 3 '% Change' is a relative change (b/mean, -0.0962/0.261 = -0.3686 vs printed -0.3685, rounding), not percentage points. Footnote markers are garbled by rendering ('^9^9 9').",76 "handling": "E5 uses Table 3 column (4) only; the target is percentage points (100*beta), distinct from the printed relative change."77 },78 {79 "issue": "RESEA extract: rendering defect 'p ¡ 0.001' (for p < 0.001) in Section 3 text.",80 "handling": "Irrelevant to the harmonised values; recorded."81 }82 ],83 "n_input_rows": {84 "sources/arxiv-2505.04555v3.txt": 66,85 "sources/arxiv-2510.03658v1.txt": 91,86 "sources/arxiv-2606.14621v1.txt": 58,87 "sources/arxiv-2609.27732v1.txt": 134,88 "README.md": 16,89 "effects.json": 590 },91 "n_analysed": 5,92 "random_seed": null93}