本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

amanthro-topic-selection

Use when deciding whether an anthropology project fits American Anthropologist (AA) and which section to target. AA is the four-field AAA flagship, so the test is significance across anthropology (sociocultural, archaeology, biological, linguistic), not single-subfield novelty. Helps frame the question and pick a section; it does not collect data or conduct fieldwork.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md4.6 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Topic Selection & Fit (amanthro-topic-selection)

AA is the flagship four-field journal of the American Anthropological Association. The bar is not "new to my subfield" — it is "matters to anthropology broadly." A great paper makes a finding in sociocultural, archaeological, biological, or linguistic anthropology legible and useful to readers in the other fields. Use this skill to pressure-test fit and section before you invest.

When to trigger

  • Choosing among possible projects or framings for an AA submission
  • A reviewer/colleague said the paper feels "too narrow" or "subfield-only"
  • Deciding among Research Article and the journal's shorter/engaged sections
  • A field or community partner has reframed what the project is for

The AA fit test

A strong AA paper usually clears all four:

  1. Four-field reach. A scholar in a different subfield should see why it matters — the shared stakes are anthropology's enduring questions: culture, power, kinship, exchange, language, embodiment, deep history, human variation, colonialism and its afterlives.
  2. A real contribution, not just a description. It changes how the field thinks, theorizes, or accounts for something — a new concept, a reframing, a decisive case, a corrected record.
  3. Credible on its own methodological terms. Ethnographic, archival, material/archaeological, bioanthropological, or linguistic — each is welcome but each must be rigorous and reflexive (see amanthro-research-design).
  4. Ethically sound. The relationship to interlocutors, communities, descendants, and heritage is accountable; consent and care are part of the design, not an afterthought (see amanthro-transparency-and-data).

Reach past your home subfield

Home subfieldReach to four-field anthropology by…
Socioculturaldraw the portable concept/mechanism, not just the ethnographic particular; speak to theory others can use
Archaeologyconnect material/temporal evidence to general claims about social life, not only site chronology
Biological / physicaltie human-variation or evolutionary findings to social and cultural meaning, not biology alone
Linguisticshow what the language data reveal about culture, power, or cognition beyond the grammar
Reflexive / publicmake the methodological/ethical/political stake one the whole discipline shares

Section choice

  • Research Article — full study, broad claim, ≤ 8,000 words (extendable to ~10,500 at the editors' discretion on acceptance).
  • Vital Topics Forum — a curated multi-author debate on a pressing issue (often invited/proposed).
  • World Anthropologies — anthropology produced beyond the Anglophone center; decenters the canon.
  • Public Anthropologies / Multimodal Anthropologies — engaged, activist, or media-based work where image/sound/film is part of the argument (see amanthro-tables-figures).
  • Review Essay — a synthetic essay across 2–5 recent books (≤ 5,000 words).

Anti-patterns

  • "No one has studied community X" as the whole contribution (descriptive, subfield-only)
  • A method showcase with no anthropological payoff readers in other fields can use
  • A sprawling project that cannot be argued within the section's word cap
  • Picking Research Article out of habit when a forum, essay, or multimodal piece would land harder
  • Treating ethics/consent as a later checkbox rather than a reason the project is even askable

Output format

【Question】one sentence
【Four-field reach】who outside the subfield cares, and why
【Contribution type】concept / reframing / decisive case / corrected record
【Section】Research Article / Vital Topics / World / Public / Multimodal / Review Essay
【Ethics flag】any consent / community-accountability / heritage issue to design for now?
【Fit verdict】strong / needs reframing / off-fit (why)
【Next】amanthro-literature-positioning

Supplementary resources

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Use when packaging AAAI code, data, multimedia appendices, technical appendices, reproducibility evidence, and post-acceptance artifact releases without violating double-blind or immutable-supplement rules.

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。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

Use when drafting an AAAI author response (rebuttal) under the single short character-limited author-feedback window, the no-URL rule, no-new-results guidance, AI-generated-review handling, and the AAAI two-phase review process where Phase-2 papers receive one feedback round before SPC/AC discussion.

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。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

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。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

Use when designing or auditing AAAI experiments for the broad-AI program committee, including baselines, ablations, statistical significance, robustness, human evaluation, AI-for-Social-Impact and alignment/safety evidence, compute and cost reporting, and reproducibility-checklist alignment for Phase-1 survival.

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。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

Use when positioning an AAAI paper's novelty against archival work, contemporaneous arXiv or workshop papers, and AAAI/IJCAI/NeurIPS/ICML/ICLR neighbors across the broad AI scope, while staying inside AAAI's dual-submission and AI-as-source policy constraints and writing a related-work section legible to non-specialist reviewers.

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。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

Use when strengthening an AAAI paper's reproducibility checklist (placed after references), experimental traceability, seed and hyperparameter reporting, compute and cost disclosure, dataset access and licensing, code/data ZIP readiness, and the claim-to-evidence map that Phase-1 reviewers use to judge rigor across AAAI's broad AI scope.

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。

brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills1,2482026年9月27日 更新

brycewang-stanford のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する