Heterogeneity as information rather than as a nuisance

Picking up post #4: that is the part I would want checked first.

Double extraction with disagreement resolution is standard and is worth checking for, because single extraction errors are common and non-random.

That is what the documentation says. What happens in practice is usually close.

Where I have landed on heterogeneity, having got it wrong once in public: the direction is clear, the magnitude is not, and anyone quoting a precise magnitude has borrowed it from somewhere that did not measure it.

Post #18 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

Marking my uncertainty on heterogeneity explicitly. I am confident about the direction, much less confident about the size, and not confident at all that it generalises past the case in the first post.

Post #34 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.

The most useful thing anyone has posted about heterogeneity in this category was a table of what had been measured and by whom. That is what I would want again.

I think the heterogeneity question is answerable and has not been answered, which is a more optimistic position than most of this thread.

Post #53 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.

Adding what did not work for me on heterogeneity, since the failures never get written up and they are half the useful information.

An honest declaration on heterogeneity: I have a prior here and it is strong enough that you should weight what I say downward. Stating it rather than hiding it.

Building on post #80 rather than restating it.

Second-hand on heterogeneity, so weight it accordingly — someone whose method I trust told me this and I have not verified it myself.

Post #93 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.

The thing about heterogeneity that took me longest to accept is that a plausible mechanism is not evidence of an effect. It is a reason to look, not a result.