「fact」の検索結果

Use when preparing AISTATS supplementary material, appendices, proof details, code/data archives, simulation scripts, additional tables, and anonymized artifacts under deadline, size, anonymity, and reviewer-discretion constraints, including how to split a theory-plus-experiments paper between body and 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 building exhibits for an American Anthropologist (AA) manuscript — photographs, maps, site plans, artifact images, kinship diagrams, transcripts, evidence tables, and multimodal media — so they are self-contained, accessible (alt text), ethically cleared (consent, permissions), and count toward the word budget. Designs exhibits; it does not run analysis or clear permissions for you.

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 quantitative model is the bottleneck for an American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics (AEJ: Macro) manuscript — DSGE, New Keynesian, heterogeneous-agent (HANK / Aiyagari-Bewley), or structural estimation — and calibration, parameter identification, solution accuracy, or counterfactual validity need discipline. For empirical shock identification see aejmac-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 as the entry point for any Agricultural Systems (AgSy) manuscript. Routes to the right AgSy sub-skill based on where you are in the lifecycle and which article type (research paper, short communication, perspective, comment, review) fits. AgSy is a systems-science journal, so the router's first job is to confirm there is a real systems question — interactions, hierarchical levels, trade-offs — not a single-factor field trial. It dispatches; 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 deciding whether a project fits Agricultural Systems (AgSy) and which article type to target. AgSy is a systems-science journal, so the test is a genuine systems question — interactions among components, across hierarchical levels (field → farm → landscape → region → food system), trade-offs, and emergent behavior — analyzed with integrated modelling, NOT a single-factor field trial. Helps frame the question; it does not collect data.

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 planning an ACM CCS project timeline across the two HotCRP review cycles, from venue fit through abstract registration, full-paper upload, rebuttal, notification, revision, artifact evaluation, ACM camera-ready, and in-person presentation, with backward-planning offsets and the security big-four deadline-hopping calendar.

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 the ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) rebuttal — turning multiple anonymous reviews into one focused, anonymous response that fixes factual errors first, adds small confirmatory cross-modal results, concedes calibratedly, and stays inside policy (anonymous, no new external links), written for the area chair who decides.

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 the ACM MM (ACM Multimedia) camera-ready version of record — de-anonymizing safely, completing the ACM rights form and CCS concepts, meeting ACM sigconf requirements, releasing code/data/media artifacts and any earned reproducibility badge, registering, and planning the oral/poster presentation in Rio.

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 an accepted ACM CCS paper for the ACM Digital Library proceedings, covering de-anonymization, the ACM sigconf final format, ACM rights and eRights forms, badge placement from artifact evaluation, incorporation of shepherd and minor-revision requirements, disclosure-timing coordination, registration, and in-person presentation.

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 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 preparing an accepted AAAI paper for camera-ready source submission to AAAI Press, including proceedings page limits, two-column template compliance, copyright transfer, purchased extra technical pages, deanonymization, registration, oral or poster presentation, and final public artifact release.

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 AAAI project timeline from topic selection through abstract, OpenReview submission, two-phase review, rebuttal, decision, camera-ready, registration, presentation, and public artifact release.

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 Xcode clean and incremental builds with repeatable inputs, timing summaries, and timestamped `.build-benchmark/` artifacts. Use when a developer wants a baseline, wants to compare before and after changes, asks to measure build performance, mentions build times, build duration, how long builds take, or wants to know if builds got faster or slower.

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。

For churned accounts, research what has changed since they left — new funding, team growth, competitor dissatisfaction, product updates that address their pain — then assess re-engagement potential and generate a personalized win-back email sequence with timing recommendations. Chains web research and LinkedIn monitoring with email sequence generation.

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。

Generate detailed, differentiated content briefs at scale. Each brief includes SERP analysis, competing page breakdown, unique angles from real customer language (reviews, Reddit), internal linking plan, and SERP feature targets. Batch mode produces 10-50 briefs in one run. Crushes generic "keyword density" briefs from tools like Surfer or Clearscope.

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。

Turn a brand's facts, a campaign brief and the product into a one-minute Meta ad strategy with its reasoning — goal, audience, objective and placements, budget split, how many ads and how different they must be (generate 3x so the user can choose), the test frame, the success metric, and safety rules for the user to accept. Decides what launch-meta-ad-campaign then executes, and re-reads the strategy after a deep check to show which assumption changed. Use it after intake and before any creative is generated or any campaign is built.

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 a street-interview ad from a complete inspected commercial interaction and current brand facts. Render product guessing, or prepare mic-only, prepared-sample or visible-task conversation script/prompt previews. Premise, actions and ad connection vary; capture rules stay fixed. Conversation media delivery is unverified.

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。

QC gate for a generated static ad image — verify the file opens, matches the requested dimensions, shows the correct product/subject (right shape, colour, label, logo), and has no garbled text or severe artifacts. Records pass/fail/needs-human in verification.md. Used as the final check in the static ad remix flow before shipping.

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。

Answers natural-language business questions over existing Power BI reports and semantic models through the FabricIQ MCP endpoint, discovering artifacts, resolving entities, generating the DAX itself, and returning a plain-language answer. Use when the user asks a data question, including one that says to query the model directly. For DAX the user supplies, or measures to save, use semantic-model-authoring.

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。

Manages Fabric Dataflow Gen2 items, including creation, M editing, connections, output destinations, getDefinition and updateDefinition inspection, executeQuery, refresh history, and Gen1-to-Gen2 save-as upgrades via saveAsNativeArtifact. Use for Dataflow items or Power Query M definitions. For pipeline JSON use pipeline-migration; for Spark or Warehouse transformations use their own 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。

Turn a user journey you just clicked through into a saved regression check that re-runs deterministically, with no model in the loop and no test code to write. Use when you have driven the same flow twice, when the user wants regression coverage without a Playwright suite, when a refactor needs proving against every existing journey, or when re-verifying by hand is costing a full drive every time.

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。