You misrepresent the linked article which doesn't report replication rates but forecasted replication rates from participants "recruited through a number of mailing lists, Twitter and blog posts".
> Participants were recruited through a number of mailing lists, Twitter and blog posts. [...] For all analyses, we use survey responses; for analysis (iii), we additionally use responses to a demographic survey that included a question on academic interests; and for analysis (iv), we additionally use the prediction market data.
So it sounds like they only used prediction-market data "for analysis (iv)", which they describe as:
> [...] (iv) whether survey-based aggregated forecasts and market-based forecasts are correlated.
---
The last line of their paper:
> If our forecasts hold up, it will be interesting to investigate if specific factors (such as different methodologies and policies) can be identified that influence replication rates.
So, it doesn't sound like they're claiming that their forecasts should be assumed reliable.
So no, implying this is a Twitter poll is a far worse misrepresentation than even the most uncharitable interpretation of what I said.
this is non-nonsensical obfuscation.
poor attempt at moving the goal posts -- for the record I did not imply, I DIRECTLY QUOTED from the article.