「theory」の検索結果

Use when sharpening the theoretical contribution and the "so what" for an Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) manuscript once results exist. Frames the contribution; it does not develop the underlying theory or run 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 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 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 polishing the prose of an Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) manuscript — sustained argumentative writing that carries theory and evidence together, a self-contained abstract, disciplined length despite the absence of a hard cap, and full anonymization for double-anonymized review. Polishes prose; it does not run the submission preflight (aos-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 analyzing the material of an Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) manuscript — coding and interpreting qualitative field data, estimating experimental and survey models, or running theory-laden archival analyses, with an audit trail appropriate to each tradition. Analyzes and reports; it does not design the study (aos-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 writing the contribution and implications section for a 《会计研究》 (Accounting Research) manuscript — articulating both the accounting-theory contribution (role of accounting information) and concrete implications for standard-setters, regulators, and audit/reporting practice. Use after results and tables are final.

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 deciding which amr-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a theory-building manuscript from theoretical-puzzle framing through developmental-review revision for an Academy of Management Review (AMR) submission. Routes — does not replace — the specialized 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。

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。

Use when packaging AAMAS multiagent code, environments, opponent and population sets, random seeds, game definitions, and logs as anonymous supplementary evidence or a public post-acceptance release, even without a separate artifact badge, so that game-theory and MARL reviewers can inspect and re-run the interaction claims.

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 the novel integrative framework that an Academy of Management Annals (Annals) review must deliver — the theory-advancing "new way of seeing the field" that is the acceptance bar, not a catalog of papers. Designs the spine; it does not gather the literature (amann-literature-synthesis) or appraise evidence balance (amann-evidence-standards).

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 planning an AAMAS project timeline from venue fit through abstract, full-paper or extended-abstract upload, supplementary material, the double-blind rebuttal, decision, IFAAMAS camera-ready, registration, and presentation, with track-specific deadlines and backward-planning offsets for a game-theory-plus-experiments 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 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 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 stress-testing the LOGIC of an Academy of Management Review (AMR) theory manuscript — checking logical coherence, running thought experiments and counterfactuals, addressing alternative explanations and disconfirming cases, and verifying each proposition follows from its argument. This is ARGUMENT DEVELOPMENT, NOT data analysis; AMR publishes no datasets, no statistics, and no empirical results.

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 AAMAS peer review, covering OpenReview review release, the double-blind rebuttal on preliminary reviews, area-chair discussion, the mixed game-theory, MARL, and systems reviewer pool, the public posting of reviews and decisions, and how acceptance criteria weigh the interaction contribution.

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。

OKR design as actually shipped, not as conference-talk theory. Outcome statements that drive decisions, key results that measure the right thing, scoring discipline, mid-quarter recalibration, and the difference between sandbagged OKRs (always 100%) and aspirational OKRs (always 30%) and stretch OKRs (genuine ambition with quarterly accountability). Triggers on OKR design, OKR setting, key result design, OKR scoring, mid-quarter recalibration, OKR cascading, outcomes vs outputs, quarterly planning, goal setting. Also triggers when a team's OKRs are always hit and producing no learning, when OKRs are demoralizing because they were set as fantasy, or when the team uses OKR vocabulary but the practice has decayed.

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。

Act as experienced opposing counsel to attack, undermine, and expose weaknesses in a legal argument, submission, witness statement, or structured reasoning. Produces a six-part adversarial analysis: 1. A core theory of attack identifying the single most effective way to defeat the argument; 2. A reconstructed version of the opposing argument stripped of rhetoric to expose its fragility; 3. Primary lines of attack grouped by category (legal misstatement, evidential gaps, causation failures, internal inconsistency, over-reliance on assertion, procedural weakness); 4. An "if I were the judge" section showing how a sceptical tribunal would dismantle the argument; 5. Surgical strikes - 3 to 5 high-impact points ready for oral submissions; and 6. An analysis of what the argument is trying to hide. Written in formal, adversarial British English for a legally trained audience.

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。

Builds a litigation chronology from the disclosure bundle itself — every entry attributed to its source document, behind a CPR 31.22 implied-undertaking check, because documents disclosed in English proceedings may only be used for those proceedings. Adds a privilege screen and case-theory significance tagging, so the output is court-facing work product, not a loose timeline. Use when the user asks to build a chronology or timeline from a disclosure bundle, a matter file, or witness statements, or says 'build the chron', 'what happened when', or needs a Statement of Facts ready timeline.

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。

This skill maps disclosure strategy from a case summary, pleading, chronology, or early case theory: the document categories that will matter, likely custodians, adverse material, evidential gaps, search themes, and the risks worth confronting early.

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。

Diagnose motivation problems in a task using self-determination theory and redesign for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Use when students are disengaged, resistant, or going through the motions.

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。

Expert blueprint for First-Person Shooters: fps_camera_look, fps_movement_logic, hitscan_weapon_query, weapon_bobbing_system, procedural recoil, and FPS NEVER rules. Shared TPS/cover theory links to godot-genre-shooter. Keywords: FPS, movement physics, weapon bobbing, camera sway, hitscan, viewmodel, air control.

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。

Review and revise academic papers with a senior-reviewer workflow. Use when an AI research/coding agent needs to work on an existing paper draft, PDF, LaTeX project, Word document, markdown manuscript, rejected paper, or paper idea that already has a concrete direction, and produce: paper maps, weakness audits, insight/novelty checks, reviewer objections, claim-experiment matrices, theory/proof checks, experiment plans, statistics/reproducibility audits, figure/table audits, ethics/compliance checks, revision plans, detailed section edits, or final submission checklists.

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。