I viewed the survey as asking one general question divided into 30 sub-questions, classical positions against newly developed positions. For example, he who denies a priori knowledge, Nominalist in abstract objects, externalist in epistemic justification, realist in external world, Humean in laws of nature, classical in logic, naturalist in metaphilosopy, physicalist in Mind, externalist in moral motivation, ...etc subscribe in general to the classical position. Those who take the counter positions subscribe to the newly developed positions.

 Naturally, things are much more complicated, many may advance answers that include elements of both positions. However, my view is that the philosophical community is split relatively equal between the two positions. Hence, except in some specifically clear cases I predicted a 45 : 40 :5.

Responses, in general were closer to 60 : 30 : 10 which means that the classical position is still significantly prevailing. As a result my metasurvey results were:

Average absolute error per answer option: 18.6%
Standard deviation: 13.4%
Your rank by average absolute error: 575 of 728

As I see it, the classical position is not so prevailing. Possible reason may be that the "new positions" is flourishing within specific communities (younger professors, non-leading institutes, or else) who are not sufficiently presented in the survey.