본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

aerj-data-analysis

Use when planning or reporting the analysis for an American Educational Research Journal (AERJ) manuscript — multilevel/HLM and growth models, IRT/measurement, quasi-experimental estimation, or qualitative coding and thematic analysis. Analysis must meet the AERA reporting standards (warrant + transparency). Strengthens analysis reporting; it does not run models for you.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md7.1 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Data Analysis (aerj-data-analysis)

AERJ analyses must be warranted (adequate evidence for the claim) and transparent (explicit logic of inquiry), per the AERA reporting standards. Whatever the method, report enough that a reader can judge — and a replicator could reproduce — the result.

When to trigger

  • Specifying the analytic strategy or writing the results section
  • A reviewer questioned model specification, uncertainty, or coding rigor
  • Reporting effect sizes, fit, robustness, or qualitative warrant
  • Reconciling quantitative and qualitative results in a mixed-methods paper

Quantitative analysis norms

  • Respect nesting. Multilevel/HLM (or cluster-robust) inference for students-in-schools data; report ICC, level-specific predictors, and random effects. Center predictors deliberately (group- vs grand-mean) and say which.
  • Report effect sizes and uncertainty, not just p-values: standardized effects, confidence intervals, and practical significance for education stakes.
  • Measurement. Report reliability and validity evidence; for scales, factor/IRT results; handle measurement error rather than ignoring it.
  • Missing data. State the mechanism assumption and method (multiple imputation / FIML), not listwise-by-default. Report attrition for longitudinal/experimental data.
  • Multiplicity. Adjust or pre-specify when testing many outcomes/subgroups.
  • Large-scale assessment data. Use plausible values and replicate/survey weights correctly.
  • Robustness. Show the result survives reasonable alternative specifications.

Qualitative analysis norms

  • Make the analytic process explicit: how codes/themes were developed, who coded, how disagreements were resolved, and how interpretations were warranted by data.
  • Evidence the claims: quotations/excerpts tied to themes; negative cases acknowledged; saturation or sufficiency addressed where relevant.
  • Reflexivity: how the researcher's position shaped generation and interpretation.

Mixed-methods integration

  • Report how the strands were integrated (joint displays, meta-inferences) and what the integration revealed that neither strand alone could. Do not report two disconnected analyses.

Execution bridge (StatsPAI / Stata MCP)

Run the battery, don't just enumerate it. Full map: execution-with-mcp. AERJ is empirical education research — field experiments and observational school data; multilevel inference and many-outcome corrections are central.

  • Many outcomes / specifications: romano_wolf (step-down FWER) or benjamini_hochberg — report the adjusted threshold.
  • OVB sensitivity: oster_delta / sensemakr.
  • Inference: wild_cluster_bootstrap (few clusters), twoway_cluster / conley; multilevel data → cluster at the right level.
  • Re-fit off one handle: audit_result(result_id) lists the missing checks and the exact suggest_function for each.
  • Exhibits: etable / did_summary_to_latex from the handle — no retyped numbers.

Keep the decisive checks in the body and the exhaustive battery in the supplement. See the executed chain in the JF execution walkthrough.

Anti-patterns

  • OLS/single-level models on clustered data; ignoring ICC
  • p-values with no effect sizes, CIs, or practical interpretation
  • Listwise deletion treated as harmless; unreported attrition
  • "Themes emerged" with no account of how, by whom, or with what reliability
  • A mixed-methods results section that never integrates

Warrant-and-transparency checklist by method (AERJ referees)

The AERA reporting standards apply to every tradition AERJ publishes, but referees probe different things by design and evidentiary tradition. Audit your results section against the row that matches your design.

DesignWhat must be reported for warrantWhat transparency requires made explicit
Multilevel / growthICC, level-specific estimates, random effects, centering choiceWhy each level enters; how missingness handled
IRT / measurementReliability, dimensionality, item/factor evidenceHow measurement error was modeled, not ignored
Quasi-experimentalIdentifying assumption, pre-trend or balance, sensitivityEstimand defined; alternative specs shown
QualitativeCoding process, who coded, exemplar evidence, negative casesReflexivity; how interpretations were warranted
MixedBoth strands plus the integration resultWhat integration revealed that neither alone could

Worked analysis vignette (illustrative)

An AERJ quasi-experimental evaluation of a ninth-grade early-warning system uses a difference-in-differences design across 25 districts. Warranted reporting states the estimand (effect on on-track-to-graduate rates), shows the parallel pre-trend, reports an illustrative +4.1 percentage points (95% CI [1.2, 7.0]) with district-clustered SEs, and adds a sensitivity check that survives dropping the two largest districts. The transparency layer names the missing-data mechanism (FIML under MAR) and the attrition rate (illustrative 6%). A weak version would report a single coefficient with a star, no pre-trend, and listwise deletion — the AERA standard for adequate evidence is not met.

Referee pushback and the AERA-standard fix

  • "You ran OLS on clustered data." → Refit with multilevel or cluster-robust inference; report ICC.
  • "P-values with no practical meaning." → Add standardized effect sizes and CIs interpreted against education stakes.
  • "'Themes emerged' tells me nothing." → Document how codes/themes were developed, by whom, with what reliability, and acknowledge negative cases.
  • "The mixed strands never meet." → Add a joint display and a meta-inference; confirm any reporting detail against the journal's current submission guidelines.

Output format

【Method】multilevel / IRT-measurement / quasi-exp / qualitative / mixed
【Specification】model or coding scheme + key choices (centering, levels, coders)
【Uncertainty / warrant】effect sizes + CIs (quant) or evidence + reflexivity (qual)
【Missing data / trustworthiness】approach stated
【Robustness】alternative specs / negative cases
【Next】aerj-tables-figures

Supplementary resources

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Use when packaging AAAI code, data, multimedia appendices, technical appendices, reproducibility evidence, and post-acceptance artifact releases without violating double-blind or immutable-supplement rules.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3천2026년 9월 27일 업데이트

Use when drafting an AAAI author response (rebuttal) under the single short character-limited author-feedback window, the no-URL rule, no-new-results guidance, AI-generated-review handling, and the AAAI two-phase review process where Phase-2 papers receive one feedback round before SPC/AC discussion.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3천2026년 9월 27일 업데이트

Use when preparing an accepted AAAI paper for camera-ready source submission to AAAI Press, including proceedings page limits, two-column template compliance, copyright transfer, purchased extra technical pages, deanonymization, registration, oral or poster presentation, and final public artifact release.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3천2026년 9월 27일 업데이트

Use when designing or auditing AAAI experiments for the broad-AI program committee, including baselines, ablations, statistical significance, robustness, human evaluation, AI-for-Social-Impact and alignment/safety evidence, compute and cost reporting, and reproducibility-checklist alignment for Phase-1 survival.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3천2026년 9월 27일 업데이트

Use when positioning an AAAI paper's novelty against archival work, contemporaneous arXiv or workshop papers, and AAAI/IJCAI/NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR neighbors across the broad AI scope, while staying inside AAAI's dual-submission and AI-as-source policy constraints and writing a related-work section legible to non-specialist reviewers.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3천2026년 9월 27일 업데이트

Use when strengthening an AAAI paper's reproducibility checklist (placed after references), experimental traceability, seed and hyperparameter reporting, compute and cost disclosure, dataset access and licensing, code/data ZIP readiness, and the claim-to-evidence map that Phase-1 reviewers use to judge rigor across AAAI's broad AI scope.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1.3천2026년 9월 27일 업데이트

brycewang-stanford의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고