1{2 "task_id": "F4-conf-03",3 "harmonised": {4 "E1": {5 "value": -35.0141,6 "unit": "percent (relative change vs. counterfactual hospitalisation rate)",7 "transformation": "100*(exp(b)-1) with b = -0.431 (printed ATT, log points) -> 100*(exp(-0.431)-1) = -35.0141%",8 "harmonisable": true,9 "missing_quantity": null,10 "locator": "arxiv-2609.27732v1 | Table 6 | row 'ATT' | column '5 km' (line 36); cross-check: row '% change' | column '5 km' = -35.0% (line 40)"11 },12 "E2": {13 "value": 1.96,14 "unit": "percent (relative change vs. control-group mean reemployment rate)",15 "transformation": "100*Delta/p with Delta = 1.47 pp (printed ATE) and p = 75.0% (printed control mean) -> 100*1.47/75.0 = 1.9600%",16 "harmonisable": true,17 "missing_quantity": null,18 "locator": "arxiv-2606.14621v1 | Table 2 | row 'Reemployment' | column 'Average treatment effect estimate' (1.47 pp) and column 'Control' (75.0%) (line 29)"19 },20 "E3": {21 "value": -1.8236,22 "unit": "percent (relative change in employment)",23 "transformation": "100*eta*g with eta = -0.388 (printed elasticity) and g = 0.047 (printed '% MW changes', proportional) -> 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": "absolute change = R0*(exp(b)-1) with b = -0.354 (printed ATT, log points); exp(b)-1 = -0.2981 is computable, but R0 (counterfactual/baseline fatal rate) is not printed",32 "harmonisable": false,33 "missing_quantity": "baseline (counterfactual, e.g. pre-opening treated-region mean) level of the fatal drug-related hospitalisation rate per 100,000 inhabitants per year in the 5 km treated regions; not printed in the extract",34 "locator": "arxiv-2609.27732v1 | Table 7 | row 'Drug-related (fatal)' | column '5 km' (line 86)"35 },36 "E5": {37 "value": -9.62,38 "unit": "percentage points",39 "transformation": "100*beta with beta = -0.0962 (printed LPM coefficient, 0-1 scale) -> -9.6200 pp",40 "harmonisable": true,41 "missing_quantity": null,42 "locator": "arxiv-2510.03658v1 | Table 3 | row 'Treatment' | column '(4)' (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": "arxiv-2609.27732v1: the abstract says fatal drug-related hospitalisations 'fall by 35%', but Table 7 (5 km) prints -0.354 log points, i.e. 100*(exp(-0.354)-1) = -29.8%, matching Section 6.1 ('approximately 30% at 5 km'); 35% is the overall (Table 6) effect.",52 "handling": "Table 7 cell used as the printed estimate for E4; abstract figure not used. E4 is not harmonisable for a separate reason (missing baseline level)."53 },54 {55 "issue": "arxiv-2609.27732v1: the same CS-DR 5 km ATT (-0.431) is printed with SE (0.210) in Table 6 but (0.218) in Appendix Table A19; A19 note says 640 never-treated regions while its table and Table 6 say 608.",56 "handling": "Only the point estimate (identical in both tables) is used; SEs and region counts are not needed and were not used."57 },58 {59 "issue": "arxiv-2505.04555v3: Table 2 prints '% MW changes' = 0.047 (4.7%), while the table note describes the 2023 increases as 'about 4%'.",60 "handling": "Per the target definition, the table value 0.047 is used for E3; with 'about 4%' the implied change would be 100*-0.388*0.04 = -1.5520% (sensitivity only, not the reported value)."61 },62 {63 "issue": "arxiv-2505.04555v3: Table 2 prints the same SE (0.091) for 'Affected employment' and 'Emp. elasticity w.r.t affected wage' (possible duplication); point estimates are internally consistent (-0.268/0.366 = -0.732).",64 "handling": "Not used; no uncertainty is propagated."65 },66 {67 "issue": "arxiv-2510.03658v1: Table 3 prints '% Change' = -0.3685 for column (4), whereas -0.0962/0.261 = -0.36858 (rounds to -0.3686); the text also attributes the 0.0855 estimate to 'table 2' and calls an 18.79% relative change a 'percentage change' while interpreting it as lives saved per 100 deaths.",68 "handling": "Not material for E5, whose target (percentage points) needs only the printed coefficient -0.0962; noted for transparency."69 },70 {71 "issue": "arxiv-2606.14621v1: the ATE (1.47 pp) is block(week)-adjusted while the 75.0% control mean is the raw aggregate control-group mean; the abstract rounds the ATE to 1.5 pp.",72 "handling": "Used the printed control mean 75.0% as the counterfactual level p, as the target definition specifies (percent of the control-group mean); 1.47 (table) used rather than 1.5 (abstract)."73 }74 ],75 "n_input_rows": {76 "effects.json": 5,77 "README.md": 16,78 "arxiv-2609.27732v1.txt": 134,79 "arxiv-2606.14621v1.txt": 58,80 "arxiv-2505.04555v3.txt": 66,81 "arxiv-2510.03658v1.txt": 9182 },83 "n_analysed": 5,84 "random_seed": null,85 "baseline_naive": {86 "E1_logpoints_times_100_pct": -43.1,87 "E2_printed_pp": 1.47,88 "E3_printed_elasticity": -0.388,89 "E4_logpoints_times_100_pct": -35.4,90 "E5_printed_coefficient": -0.0962,91 "note": "Naive values = printed numbers read at face value (log points x100 treated as percent; no rescaling). Not harmonised estimates."92 }93}