「literature」の検索結果

Identifies the real underlying study design used in a medical or biomedical paper, distinguishes primary and secondary design components when papers are hybrid, and converts the paper into an evidence-aware design label suitable for literature appraisal, evidence grading, and downstream review workflows. Always identify the actual design from what the study did, not from how the authors describe it. Never fabricate references, metadata, or study features.

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。

Composes a Discussion around key findings, mechanisms, clinical relevance, and limitations. Use when writing or improving a Discussion section for any biomedical manuscript — including interpreting results, connecting to prior literature, addressing unexpected findings, framing limitations, and writing the conclusion. Also triggers on "write my discussion", "help me discuss my findings", "how do I compare to prior studies", "write the limitations paragraph", or "draft a discussion for my paper".

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 whenever you generate or review a chart, plot, table, or paper figure in this workspace, including work delegated by paper-writing, literature-survey, and experiment skills. Applies the Open Science publication style, enforces readable final-size layout for figures and tables, and rejects generic diagram-tool output as a publication figure. Interactive Plotly/HTML may be used for exploration, but paper delivery requires a static publication-ready export.

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。

Creates reusable, source-traced research reports and coordinates provider/mode lanes with original exports. Use for 深度研究, 调研报告, literature reviews, market or company research, and ChatGPT/Kimi/UniFuncs research routes. Technology choice uses tech-selection; competitor code uses competitors-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。

Use when asked 帮我写开题报告, 开题答辩怎么准备, 文献综述怎么写, 技术路线图, 研究内容和创新点, or write a thesis proposal for a Chinese university. Produces a 开题报告 in the section order Chinese universities use (选题背景与意义, 国内外研究现状, 研究内容与目标, 研究方法与技术路线, 创新点, 研究基础, 进度安排, 预期成果, 参考文献), a literature review plan, a technical route diagram in text, and the questions the 开题答辩 panel is likely to ask.

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。

Systematic strategic planning framework for philosophy and interdisciplinary academic papers targeting preprint platforms (PhilArchive, arXiv, PhilSci-Archive). Use when users want to: (1) plan a paper on a specific topic, (2) identify research gaps and assess originality, (3) develop optimized paper outlines, (4) prepare for preprint submission, or (5) understand platform requirements and writing standards. Triggered by phrases like 'plan a paper on,' 'help me design a paper about,' 'identify research gaps in,' 'is this idea original,' or when users need structured research planning. The skill guides through three phases: Platform Analysis (identifying target venue and studying sample papers), Theoretical Framework (AI-driven literature search and gap identification), and Outline Optimization (structured design with reviewer-perspective self-assessment). Each phase includes quality evaluation standards and validation checkpoints. Output: optimized detailed outline ready for systematic writing (use with academic-paper-composer skill).

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。

Scholarly research companion using Knows sidecar spec (.knows.yaml). Generates, validates, reviews, queries, and compares structured research-paper sidecars, and fetches them from knows.academy. Use for academic literature search, survey synthesis, paper authoring assistance, and peer review with token-efficient claim/evidence/relation access.

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。

Draft and revise academic prose against a rubric, evidence, and citation requirements. Use for essays, reports, literature reviews, or academic style audits.

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 academic literature and generate research hypotheses

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 AISTATS submission against AI, machine-learning, statistics, and uncertainty literature, including arXiv preprints, workshop versions, concurrent submissions, prior conference versions, PMLR archival status, and the two-community citation coverage that AISTATS 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 the contribution of an American Economic Journal: Microeconomics (AEJ: Micro) manuscript is fuzzy or oversold relative to the closest existing results. Stakes the theorem-relative delta against the nearest theory; it does not build the model (see aejmic-theory-model) or frame the prose (see aejmic-writing-style).

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 marginal contribution of an American Economic Journal: Applied Economics (AEJ: Applied) manuscript is fuzzy or undersold and must be staked precisely against prior applied-micro work. Positions the contribution; it does not fix the identification (aeja-identification) or the prose (aeja-writing-style).

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 Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) manuscript within organization-theory conversations and sharpening the gap/tension it addresses. Positions the argument; it does not develop the core theory or write the methods.

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 ACM CCS submission against the security big-four and specialist literature, including arXiv preprints, prior CCS/S&P/USENIX/NDSS papers, concurrent disclosures, CVE and advisory records, and the attack-and-defense lineage that a SIGSAC program committee expects to see credited.

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 building or auditing the related-work section of an ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) paper — covering the multimedia literature spread across vision, audio/speech, language, HCI/QoE, and systems, handling arXiv-speed concurrency, keeping citations double-blind, and verifying that cited "ACM MM papers" are ACM MM and not ICMR, MMSys, CVPR, or TOMM.

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 positioning an ACL submission against the NLP literature, covering ACL Anthology citation practice, arXiv-versus-published version citation, concurrent LLM-era preprints, prior-cycle ARR resubmission overlap, anonymity-preserving self-citation, and the fast-moving baseline problem in computational linguistics.

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 building exhibits for an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review — the signature framework figure, who-studied-what synthesis tables, and search/coverage exhibits that summarize across a literature. Designs review exhibits; it does not produce original-estimate regression tables (an Annals review reports no new data of its own).

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。

Search PubMed biomedical literature database

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。

Hypothesis generation from scientific literature and data patterns

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。

Benchmark LLM reference recommendation capabilities by verifying every cited paper against Crossref, PubMed, arXiv, and DBLP. Measures hallucination rate, per-field accuracy (title/author/year/DOI), discipline breakdown, and year constraint compliance. Supports tool-augmented (ReAct + web search) mode. Use when the user asks to evaluate, benchmark, or compare models on academic reference hallucination, literature recommendation quality, or citation accuracy.

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 user wants help with academic papers or citations but it's unclear which specific workflow fits — reviewing a paper, checking a BibTeX file for fake references, or benchmarking multiple LLMs on reference-recommendation accuracy. Also use when the user mentions paper review, peer review, BibTeX verification, citation checking, reference hallucination, or academic literature accuracy and hasn't specified which of those three tasks they mean. This skill is the entry router for the academic-eval suite: it asks one diagnostic question then routes to the right sub-skill.

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。

Benchmark LLM reference recommendation capabilities by verifying every cited paper against Crossref, PubMed, arXiv, and DBLP. Measures hallucination rate, per-field accuracy (title/author/year/DOI), discipline breakdown, and year constraint compliance. Supports tool-augmented (ReAct + web search) mode. Use when the user asks to evaluate, benchmark, or compare models on academic reference hallucination, literature recommendation quality, or citation accuracy.

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。