So I took a version of that survey that told you how you were doing as you went along myself to see how it would go. And the main component to predicting correc

So I took a version of that survey that told you how you were doing as you went along myself to see how it would go. And the main component to predicting correctly was really some form of occam's razor/causal reasoning, where the studies that seemed to make more intuitive sense, or you could imagine a causal mechanism, were the ones more likely to replicate. But this actually doesn't say anything about the quality of the actual study, it just shows that we should probably ask for more statistical rigor/power when the results are unexpected, because we expect the base rate of surprising findings to be lower in general.