「oci」の検索結果

Use when a study needs a preregistration or a frozen analysis plan, when confirmatory and exploratory analyses must be separated, or when every deviation from the registered plan must be logged before the result is reported.

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 a research note system needs architecture, when MOCs, frontmatter standards, and retrieval patterns must be designed for years of work, or when an existing vault has outgrown its structure and must migrate without breaking years of links.

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 serving as a peer reviewer and deciding whether and how AI may assist, when a manuscript under review must never be pasted into an external tool, or when a confidentiality-preserving review and disclosure are needed.

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 automating research session rituals in Claude Code with hooks, such as session-start context injection, daily research logging, session-end persistence, or pre-commit guards that block secrets and unverified citations.

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 paired tr.md and en.md files need a parity verdict, when titles, frontmatter, headings, or DOI sets may have drifted between languages, or when a bilingual document is approaching release and its translation coverage needs an audit.

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 AI contribution metadata must match the actual workflow, when model alias and dated identifiers need auditing, when verified and fabricated citation counts feed a release decision, or when a venue's AI disclosure statement needs evidence behind it.

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 authorship order, CRediT contribution roles, or AI-assistance attribution must be recorded transparently for a manuscript, when an author dispute needs an evidence trail, or before a contributorship statement is required at submission; this skill maintains the human-attribution ledger of who contributed what and in which role (authorship order, CRediT taxonomy, revision responsibilities), which is distinct from the disclosure-metadata audit owned by ai-disclosure-auditor.

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 a research proposal needs work packages, milestones, deliverables, a timeline, a risk register, and budget-justification scaffolding, while keeping scientific claims and feasibility honest and human-owned.

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 choosing a journal for a finished or nearly finished manuscript, when index status in Scopus, SSCI, ESCI, or TR Dizin must be confirmed, when a venue looks predatory, or when a cover letter needs drafting from the manuscript's actual 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 a researcher asks where to start, which project skill fits the current stage of a study, or in what order literature scoping, source access, vault upkeep, drafting, citation verification, disclosure, and review response should run.

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 a study's materials, data, code, or preprint need an open-science release: license choice, a persistent DOI (Zenodo/OSF), README and metadata, and an access-and-embargo decision that respects ethics constraints.

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 a construct, scale, or key term crosses Turkish and English and conceptual equivalence must be audited: translation and back-translation, construct drift, and culturally bound meaning, before measurement or cross-cultural 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 before sensitive, clinical, identifying, or raw interview data is placed in front of an AI tool, when transcripts or student materials need de-identification, or when a data-minimization gate must run before any analysis or drafting.

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 authoring a new manuscript, thesis chapter, or abstract from scratch in Turkish and English in parallel — building the claim skeleton first, then drafting Turkish and re-authoring English — not for auditing parity between existing versions.

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 before a tag, GitHub release, or Zenodo archive, when README, CATALOG, CHANGELOG, CITATION.cff, the disclosure aggregate, and skill discovery must agree, or when a go or no-go release verdict needs recorded evidence behind it.

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 reviewer comments arrive and each one needs a tracked decision, when a revise and resubmit letter must map every comment to a manuscript change, or when contradictory reviewer demands need evidence-based, editor-facing 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 a systematic, scoping, or rapid review needs a reproducible pipeline: protocol framing (PICO/SPIDER/PCC), a logged search string, title/abstract and full-text screening with recorded exclusion reasons, and PRISMA flow counts, with the human as the deciding screener.

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 a source must be reached through DergiPark, ULAKBIM TR Dizin, HEAL-Link, YOK Thesis Center, or an institutional library route, when off-campus access fails, or when a lawful retrieval plan is needed for Turkish, Greek, or European materials.

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 slides, a poster, or a lightning talk from a manuscript, when a presentation must exist in Turkish and English, or when conference visuals need a traceability check so every number on a slide matches the analysis behind it.

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 a Claude Code session loops, drifts from scope, claims a fix that CI rejects, hits context, PATH, or permission walls, or fails in a way another retry will not solve and a root cause diagnosis is needed instead.

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 sources must stay traceable across sessions and years, when each reference needs a passport recording where it was found, how it was verified, and where it is cited, or when a draft needs a cited-but-unverified sweep 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。

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。

Use when a high-stakes analysis, citation set, or decision should be checked by a second independent AI agent that verifies rather than decides, or when disagreement between agents must be surfaced for the human to adjudicate.

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 a course, assessment, or student-feedback workflow and deciding where AI assistance is acceptable, when grading or feedback must stay within academic-integrity and FERPA/KVKK boundaries, or when AI-use rules for students need stating.

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。