{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02857142857142857, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005194805194805195, 'mean_word_length': 4.976744186046512, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Indiscriminate Data Aggregations in Meta-Analysis

Whether you are a policy maker or social scientist, you are slowly being drowned in a sea of often inconsistent research data. Proponents of meta-analysis claim that such data can be objectively and usefully summarized for you. The author notes how the assumptions of the meta-analytic model preclude the synthesis of experimental data (which has a clear cause-and-effect logic) with quasi-experimental and/or nonexperimental data (both of which lack such clarity). Yet in the author’s review of 64 recent meta-analytic articles, 11 were found to improperly make such aggregations. Why? The author shows how the guidance provided by the leading proponents of meta-analysis either blurs the distinction or is misleading.