My answer, to be treated as a straw man if required:
There is a difference between "is there a canonical book on [x]?", the subject of the question closed in the linked meta discussion, and "are there empirical studies on [x]?".
Answers to questions of the first form are likely to be laundry lists, or single-entry "I like [y]" responses. These are unhelpful; "I like [y]" is not a valuable answer, and "I like [y] because…" solicits polling and extended debate which is not valued here. Furthermore, these questions imply the existence of a real question ("how do I do this using [x]" or similar) that is not being asked and answered here, reducing the value of this site.
Answers to questions of the second form give readers information from which to form their own conclusions. If an answer discusses a study, for example "there is [z] published in 1995, which I consider irrelevant because…", readers can choose to read [z] and decide for themselves; particularly, they can read [z] in context with the sources presented by other answers. The first-form request for "a canonical book" suggests that the intention is not to read every book, but to be told the one that needs reading.
There are still problems with questions of the second form; the risk of extended debate is not mitigated. See the comments on this question as a demonstration that even whether empirical results have value at all is a contentious issue. There's also the difficulty of choosing an accepted answer; if multiple answers provide multiple, distinct sources then none of them is "the" answer.