「ethics」の検索結果

ソフトウェア・エンジニアリングのための倫理集。開発時に必ず意識するものです。

Regulatory review across 14 frameworks — compliance review, privacy impact assessment, regulatory gap analysis, data subject rights, consent mechanisms, audit trail, AI ethics review, data flow mapping. Covers GDPR, PIPEDA, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, SOC2, UAE-PDPL, EU AI Act and more.

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 an ethics committee or IRB application involves AI anywhere in the pipeline, when KVKK, GDPR, or EU AI Act duties must be mapped to a study, or when consent and disclosure language about AI use needs drafting before 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。

Universal deep research agent team. 13-agent pipeline for rigorous academic research on any topic. 8 modes: full research, quick brief, paper review, lit-review, fact-check, three-way literature scan, Socratic guided research dialogue, and systematic review with optional meta-analysis. Covers research question formulation, Socratic mentoring, methodology design, systematic literature search, source verification, cross-source synthesis, risk of bias assessment, meta-analysis, APA 7.0 report compilation, editorial review, devil's advocate challenges, ethics review, and post-research literature monitoring. Triggers on: research, deep research, literature review, systematic review, meta-analysis, PRISMA, evidence synthesis, fact-check, WHY HOW WHAT papers, 3W literature scan, guide my research, help me think through, 研究, 深度研究, 文獻回顧, 文獻探討, 系統性回顧, 後設分析, 事實查核, 三段式文獻掃描, 引導我的研究, 幫我釐清, 幫我想想, 我不確定要研究什麼, 研究方向, 研究主題, 심층 연구, 문헌 조사, 체계적 문헌고찰, 메타분석, 사실 확인, 연구 방향을 잡아줘, 연구 주제 정하는 것을 도와줘, revisión de literatura, metaanálisis

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。

Facilitates evidence-aware scientific ideation with independent generation, structured discussion, explicit assumptions, transparent evaluation, adversarial review, and decision logs. Use for early-stage research brainstorming or prioritizing candidate directions; hand off empirical validation, study design, ethics or regulatory review, and clinical questions to appropriate experts or skills.

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。

Prepares evidence-bounded, constructive peer-review drafts and structured manuscript assessments. Supports authorized review of scientific manuscripts, protocols, preprints, or research proposals; reporting-guideline selection; claim–evidence checks; methods, statistics, reproducibility, ethics, figure/table, and citation critique; or revision-response planning.

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 peer review toolkit. Evaluate methodology, statistics, design, reproducibility, ethics, figure integrity, reporting standards, for manuscript and grant review across disciplines.

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。

Universal deep research agent team. 13-agent pipeline for rigorous academic research on any topic. 7 modes: full research, quick brief, paper review, lit-review, fact-check, Socratic guided research dialogue, and systematic review with optional meta-analysis. Covers research question formulation, Socratic mentoring, methodology design, systematic literature search, source verification, cross-source synthesis, risk of bias assessment, meta-analysis, APA 7.0 report compilation, editorial review, devil's advocate challenges, ethics review, and post-research literature monitoring. Triggers on: research, deep research, literature review, systematic review, meta-analysis, PRISMA, evidence synthesis, fact-check, guide my research, help me think through, 研究, 深度研究, 文獻回顧, 文獻探討, 系統性回顧, 後設分析, 事實查核, 引導我的研究, 幫我釐清, 幫我想想, 我不確定要研究什麼, 研究方向, 研究主題.

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。

Prepare evidence-bounded, constructive peer-review drafts and structured manuscript assessments. Use for authorized review of scientific manuscripts, protocols, preprints, or research proposals; reporting-guideline selection; claim–evidence checks; methods, statistics, reproducibility, ethics, figure/table, and citation critique; or revision-response planning.

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。

Design habit-forming product loops using the Hook Model (Trigger, Action, Variable Reward, Investment). Use when the user mentions "users arent coming back", "habit formation", "engagement loops", "habit zone", or "the manipulation matrix". Also trigger when designing notification or re-engagement strategies, building streaks or progress systems, or analyzing why users stop after signup. Covers ethics evaluation and onboarding for habits. For friction reduction and B=MAP, see improve-retention. For viral sharing, see contagious.

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 a clinical trial protocol synopsis with the elements regulators and IRBs expect. Use when asked to write a clinical trial protocol, a study protocol synopsis, a trial design, or to structure endpoints/eligibility/statistics for an interventional study. Produces a structured protocol synopsis — objectives, design, population with eligibility, interventions, endpoints, statistics, and safety/ethics — for expert review. (For non-clinical/UX research, use research-protocol.)

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。

Write an AI usage policy people can actually follow — approved tools, data rules, disclosure duties, and review obligations, in one page instead of legal fog. Use when asked for a company AI policy, acceptable-use rules for ChatGPT/Claude/Copilot at work, guidance on what data may go into AI tools, or to fix a policy nobody reads. Produces a one-page usable policy plus the decision log behind it. Not a substitute for legal advice; pairs with compliance-checklist for regulatory mapping and ai-ethics-review for system-level assessments.

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 need to understand how American Anthropologist (AA) evaluates a manuscript — editorial screening, anonymous peer review under an ethics of care, the four-field editorial board, decision categories, and how section choice shapes the path. Sets expectations and shapes the paper to survive review; it does not contact editors.

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 response to an American Anthropologist (AA) revise-and-resubmit. AA uses anonymous peer review under an ethics of care, often with cross-subfield reviewers, so the response must convert each reviewer while keeping the editor confident and the ethnographic contribution intact. Structures the response letter; it does not fabricate new evidence.

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 running the final pre-submission preflight for American Anthropologist (AA) via the Research Exchange platform — section selection, anonymization, word/abstract caps, Chicago author-date (free-format accepted), DOIs, ORCID, ethics statement, and figure permissions/alt text. Final checks; it does not draft content.

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 explaining or planning around ACM CCS peer review, the two-cycle HotCRP workflow, decision categories including minor revision, the rebuttal window, the adversarial reviewer pool, ethics and disclosure scrutiny, meta-review dynamics, and ACM proceedings outcomes.

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 auditing an ACM CCS submission for HotCRP readiness, dual-cycle abstract registration and full-paper deadlines, the 12-page ACM sigconf body, anonymization, the ethics considerations appendix, artifact-availability posture, dual-submission policy, per-cycle submission caps, desk-reject triggers, and final-week sequencing.

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 ACM CCS appendices and supplementary material, including the ethics considerations appendix, protocol transcripts, formal proofs, measurement tables, and anonymized supporting material under the 12-page body limit, anonymity, and reviewer-discretion constraints for a security 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 when reasoning about how an ACL paper travels through ACL Rolling Review and conference commitment, covering reviewer and area-chair roles, meta-reviews, the commitment decision by senior area chairs and program chairs, Findings versus main-conference outcomes, ethics review escalation, and resubmission strategy across cycles.

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 running the final pre-submission preflight for an Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) manuscript — Editorial Manager files (anonymized manuscript, separate title page, declarations), Elsevier policies (competing interests, AI, ethics), and open-access decisions. Checks readiness to submit; it does not handle the post-decision response (aos-rebuttal).

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 organizing appendices and supplementary material for an ACL paper under ACL Rolling Review, covering the mandatory Limitations and optional ethics sections, appendices after references, anonymized software and data archives, the no-cloud-links rule, and deciding what must stay in the 8-page or 4-page body.

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 designing the study for an Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) manuscript — qualitative field studies (access, case logic, interviews, observation), behavioral experiments, surveys, historical/archival inquiry, or theory-laden archival designs, each with the ethics and site-anonymity groundwork done early. Designs the inquiry; it does not run the coding or estimation (aos-data-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 running the final pre-submission preflight for an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript — ScholarOne portal, AOM format and length, abstract, anonymization for review, references, ethics/originality, and required files. Theory-only journal; there is no data-availability or replication step.

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 ACM CCS rebuttal during the HotCRP author-response window, covering threat-model defenses, adaptive-attack objections, ethics and disclosure questions, anonymity constraints, adversarial reviewer pushback patterns, and decision-focused replies aimed at the meta-reviewer.

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。