スキルを探す

Use when writing or verifying the institutional / accounting-standard / regulatory background for a 《会计研究》 (Accounting Research) manuscript — getting standard clauses, regulatory rules, and effective dates exactly right, since precise institutional detail is a defining bar of this journal. Use before measurement and identification.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when framing or sharpening a topic for 《会计研究》 (Accounting Research) — turning a generic "X affects Y" empirical idea into an accounting contribution anchored in China's institutional setting, accounting theory, and standard-setting / practice relevance. Use before literature review.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when finalizing tables and figures for a 《会计研究》 (Accounting Research) manuscript — keeping the main table lean, reporting coefficients with the right precision, and interpreting economic magnitude (not just significance stars) for accounting measures. Use after robustness is settled.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when responding to 《会计研究》 (Accounting Research) reviewer reports / an R&R — drafting a point-by-point response letter and 修改说明 that addresses accounting-measure construction, institutional/standard accuracy, identification, and information-mechanism concerns, while keeping the revision anonymous. Use only after the manuscript itself has been revised.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when you must identify which theoretical conversation an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript enters and how it "challenges and extends" that conversation. Positions the argument within a literature; it does NOT summarize the field (AMR punishes review-essays) and does NOT build the new theory (that is amr-theory-development).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when situating an Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) manuscript in the literature — entering one of the journal's own long-running conversations, engaging the interdisciplinary sources (organization theory, sociology, psychology) those conversations draw on, and marking precisely what the paper adds. Positions the argument; it does not build the theory itself (aos-theory-development).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when the front end of an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript needs to engage the right literatures and stake a clear position in an ongoing theoretical conversation. Positions the paper among theories; it does not derive the hypotheses (amj-theory-development) or write the contribution paragraph (amj-contribution-framing).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when strengthening AAMAS reproducibility evidence for interaction claims, including proofs and game definitions, opponent and population sets, self-play protocols, random seeds, compute, uncertainty on strategic outcomes, baselines, and consistency between what the paper claims about agents and what the artifact can actually show.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when preparing AAMAS supplementary material - proofs, extended game and mechanism definitions, extra multiagent experiments, opponent-set details, and the anonymized artifact zip - under the size cap, anonymity, and reviewer-discretion limits, including how to split a game-theory-plus-experiments paper across the 8-page body and the supplement.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when scoping or sanity-checking a research question for an Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) manuscript — fit, theory-drivenness, and feasibility. Decides whether the idea can earn a theoretical contribution; it does not build the theory itself (use amj-theory-development) or position the literature (amj-literature-positioning).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when judging whether a management/organization literature is an Academy of Management Annals (Annals)-scale review topic — mature, important, fragmented, and integrable into a new framework — rather than a narrow review. Decides fit and frames the review's animating problem; it does not gather the literature (amann-literature-synthesis) or write the proposal (amann-proposal-framing).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when writing the short proposal that gates an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review — the ≤5-page, four-heading proposal submitted under the twice-yearly deadlines before any full review is invited. Builds the proposal; it does not gather the literature (amann-literature-synthesis) or run the portal preflight (amann-submission).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when deciding whether a project is a strong AAMAS fit, comparing AAMAS with AAAI, IJCAI, NeurIPS, ICML, EC, and the JAAMAS journal, identifying whether the agents are truly the research object, naming the interaction primitive (solution concept, mechanism, coordination, negotiation), and sharpening the multiagent framing before writing begins.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when positioning an AAMAS submission against multiagent, game-theory, and reinforcement-learning literature spread across AAMAS, AAAI, IJCAI, NeurIPS, ICML, EC, and JAAMAS, including arXiv and workshop versions, concurrent submissions, prior conference versions, and the cross-community citation coverage AAMAS reviewers expect.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when systematically gathering, coding, and synthesizing a management/organization literature for an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review — the search-and-coverage methodology and the choice of narrative vs. systematic vs. bibliometric integration. Builds the corpus and synthesis notes; it does not impose the organizing spine (amann-organizing-framework) or write prose.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when drafting an AAMAS rebuttal to preliminary OpenReview reviews, covering the double-blind constraint, the no-new-results and no-revised-paper norms, how to answer game-theory, MARL, and systems reviewers at once, and how to give the area chair a clean acceptance rationale within a short response window.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Search LinkedIn posts by keywords, sorted by engagement or date. Use when researching what people are saying about a topic on LinkedIn, finding high-engagement content, identifying thought leaders, or discovering warm leads through post engagement. Returns author, post text, reactions, comments, shares, post URL, and date. No LinkedIn cookies or login required.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Evaluate whether a creator, influencer, or brand account reaches the right audience using public profile, aggregate demographic, geography, language, content, comment, and commerce signals. Use for creator comparisons, sponsorship fit, market fit, and audience-quality research.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Compatibility alias for the original ScrapeCreators social scraping skill. Use scrapecreators-api for current endpoint guidance and the task-specific Brand Growth research skills for finished analysis.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Compare competitors' social content across platforms to identify recurring topics, formats, hooks, audience reactions, distribution patterns, and credible content opportunities for a brand.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

AI-powered web search, crawling, extraction, and deep research

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Web research API with OpenAI-compatible chat completions and async tasks

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Neural web search - find similar content, extract pages, and run deep research

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。