{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02635431918008785, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.44811320754717, '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}}
Meta-Analysis: Literature Synthesis or Effect-Size Surface Estimation?

A traditional meta-analysis can be thought of as a literature synthesis, in which a collection of observed studies is analyzed to obtain summary judgments about overall significance and size of effects. Many aspects of the current set of statistical tools for meta-analysis are highly useful—for example, the development of clear and concise effect-size indicators with associated standard errors. I am less happy, however, with more esoteric statistical techniques and their implied objects of estimation (i.e., their estimands) which are tied to the conceptualization of average effect sizes, weighted or otherwise, in a population of studies. In contrast to these average effect sizes of literature synthesis, I believe that the proper estimand is an effect-size surface, which is a function only of scientifically relevant factors, and which can only be estimated by extrapolating a response surface of observed effect sizes to a region of ideal studies. This effect-size surface perspective is presented and contrasted with the literature synthesis perspective. The presentation is entirely conceptual. Moreover, it is designed to be provocative, thereby prodding researchers to rethink traditional meta-analysis and ideally stimulating meta-analysts to attempt effect-surface estimations.