Research & Analysis

Summarize this academic paper:

[paper abstract or full text]

Provide:
1. **Main thesis** - Central argument (1-2 sentences)
2. **Methodology** - How they approached it
3. **Key findings** - Most important results (bullet points)
4. **Contributions** - What's new/significant
5. **Limitations** - Acknowledged or apparent weaknesses
6. **Relevance to [my research topic]** - How it connects

Reading level: ${readingLevel:graduate}

Synthesize these papers on ${topic:the effectiveness of remote work}:

Paper 1: ${paper1:Smith 2021 - found productivity increased 15%}
Paper 2: ${paper2:Jones 2022 - noted collaboration challenges}
Paper 3: ${paper3:Chen 2023 - hybrid model showed best outcomes}

Analyze:
1. **Common themes** - What do they agree on?
2. **Contradictions** - Where do they disagree?
3. **Gaps** - What's not addressed?
4. **Evolution** - How has thinking progressed?
5. **Synthesis** - Integrated understanding

Format as: Literature review paragraph suitable for ${outputType:thesis}

Help me develop research questions for ${topic:AI adoption in healthcare}.

Context:
- Field: ${field:health informatics}
- Current knowledge: ${currentKnowledge:AI tools exist but adoption is slow}
- Gap identified: ${gap:limited understanding of physician resistance factors}
- My interest: ${interest:organizational change management}

Generate:
1. **Primary RQ** - Main question to answer
2. **Sub-questions** - Supporting inquiries (3-4)
3. **Hypotheses** - Testable predictions (if applicable)

Criteria: Questions should be:
- Answerable with available methods
- Significant to the field
- Appropriately scoped

Help me analyze this data:

Data description:
- Variables: ${variables:age (continuous), treatment group (categorical: A/B/C), outcome score (continuous)}
- Sample size: ${sampleSize:n=150 (50 per group)}
- Research question: ${researchQuestion:Does treatment type affect outcome scores?}
- Data characteristics: ${characteristics:normally distributed, no missing values}

Advise on:
1. **Appropriate tests** - Which statistical tests to use
2. **Assumptions to check** - Prerequisites
3. **How to interpret results** - What different outcomes mean
4. **Effect size** - Practical significance
5. **Reporting** - How to present findings

Note: Guide my analysis, don't fabricate results.

Help me analyze these qualitative responses:

Responses:
${responses:paste interview excerpts or survey responses here}

Using ${method:thematic analysis}:

1. **Initial codes** - Identify recurring concepts
2. **Categories** - Group related codes
3. **Themes** - Overarching patterns
4. **Relationships** - How themes connect
5. **Representative quotes** - Evidence for each theme

Maintain: Participant voice and context

Help me interpret these findings:

Results:
${results:paste statistical output or data summary here}

Context:
- Research question: ${researchQuestion:Does X predict Y?}
- Hypothesis: ${hypothesis:X positively predicts Y}
- Expected results: ${expectedResults:significant positive correlation}

Provide:
1. **Plain language interpretation** - What does this mean?
2. **Statistical significance** - What the p-values tell us
3. **Practical significance** - Real-world meaning
4. **Comparison to literature** - How does this fit?
5. **Alternative explanations** - Other interpretations
6. **Limitations of interpretation**

Conduct a PESTLE analysis for ${subject:electric vehicle industry in Europe}.

**Political** factors:
- Government policies, regulations, political stability

**Economic** factors:
- Economic growth, inflation, exchange rates, unemployment

**Social** factors:
- Demographics, cultural trends, lifestyle changes

**Technological** factors:
- Innovation, R&D, automation, technology changes

**Legal** factors:
- Legislation, regulatory bodies, employment law

**Environmental** factors:
- Climate, sustainability, environmental regulations

For each: Current state + trends + implications

Perform root cause analysis for ${problem:customer churn increased 20% last quarter}.

Problem statement:
${problemStatement:Monthly churn rate rose from 3% to 3.6% between Q3 and Q4}

Using 5 Whys:
1. Why? First level cause
 2. Why? Deeper cause
    3. Why? Deeper still
       4. Why? Approaching root
          5. Why? Root cause

Alternative: Fishbone diagram categories
- People
- Process
- Equipment
- Materials
- Environment
- Management

Provide: Root cause(s) + recommended actions

Conduct a gap analysis for ${subject:our customer support operations}.

**Current State:**
- ${currentState:Average response time 24 hours, CSAT 3.2/5}

**Desired State:**
- ${desiredState:Response time under 4 hours, CSAT 4.5/5}

**Gap Identification:**
| Area | Current | Desired | Gap | Priority |
|------|---------|---------|-----|----------|
| ... | ... | ... | ... | H/M/L |

**Action Plan:**
For each high-priority gap:
- Specific actions
- Resources needed
- Timeline
- Success metrics

Help me structure an argument for ${topic:why remote work should become permanent policy}.

Main claim: ${thesis:Organizations should adopt permanent remote/hybrid policies for knowledge workers}

Required:
1. **Premises** - Supporting claims that lead to conclusion
2. **Evidence** - Data/sources for each premise
3. **Counterarguments** - Opposing views
4. **Rebuttals** - Responses to counterarguments
5. **Logical flow** - How it all connects

Check for:
- Logical fallacies
- Unsupported claims
- Gaps in reasoning

Help me write a methods section for:

Study type: ${studyType:survey}
Participants: ${participants:200 undergraduate students, convenience sampling}
Materials: ${materials:online questionnaire with Likert scales}
Procedure: ${procedure:participants completed 20-minute survey online}
Analysis: ${analysis:descriptive statistics and regression analysis}

Standards: Follow ${standards:APA 7th edition} guidelines
Include: Enough detail for replication
Tone: Passive voice, past tense

Help me write a discussion section.

Key findings:
${findings:1. Significant positive correlation (r=0.45) between X and Y
2. No significant difference between groups on secondary measure}

Structure:
1. **Summary** - Brief restatement of main findings
2. **Interpretation** - What the findings mean
3. **Context** - How findings relate to existing literature
4. **Implications** - Theoretical and practical significance
5. **Limitations** - Study weaknesses
6. **Future directions** - What research should follow
7. **Conclusion** - Take-home message

Avoid: Overstating findings or introducing new results

Evaluate this source for academic use:

Source: ${source:paste citation or link here}
Content summary: ${summary:brief description of what the source claims}

Assess using CRAAP criteria:
- **Currency**: When published? Updated? Current enough?
- **Relevance**: Relates to my topic? Appropriate level?
- **Authority**: Author credentials? Publisher reputation?
- **Accuracy**: Supported by evidence? Peer-reviewed?
- **Purpose**: Why was it written? Bias evident?

Verdict: Highly credible / Use with caution / Avoid
How to use: Recommendations for incorporation

Analyze the argument in this text:

${text:paste the text you want to analyze}

Identify:
1. **Main claim** - What's being argued
2. **Supporting evidence** - What backs it up
3. **Assumptions** - Unstated premises
4. **Logical structure** - How conclusion follows
5. **Strengths** - What's compelling
6. **Weaknesses** - Logical gaps or fallacies
7. **Alternative interpretations**

Provide: Fair, balanced assessment

I want you to act as a research assistant. Help me explore topics, find information, synthesize sources, and develop arguments. Ask clarifying questions, suggest relevant areas to investigate, and help me think critically about evidence. Be thorough but acknowledge the limits of your knowledge.

I want you to act as a data analyst. I will describe datasets and research questions, and you will suggest analysis approaches, help interpret results, and identify potential issues. Focus on sound methodology and clear communication of findings.

I want you to act as an academic peer reviewer. I will share manuscripts or sections, and you will provide constructive feedback on methodology, argument, writing, and contribution to the field. Be rigorous but supportive, noting both strengths and areas for improvement.