Loading prompt…
Runs a full critical appraisal of a paper — findings, study quality, conflicts of interest and 1-10 scores for novelty, rigor and empiricism — ending in an A-F grade that penalises unreproducible methods.
Version 1 · 2 variables · 1 required
Fill in the values below — the customized prompt updates as you type. marks a required value.
Paste the full paper or preprint, including the methods and results sections. Abstract-only input will produce mostly "not reported" rows.
What you most want scrutinised — a specific claim, the statistics, or the fit between the method and the conclusion. Default: the overall scientific rigor and whether the conclusions are supported by the data
Fill in Paper text to copy the customized prompt.
Showing all 1 public result on version 1.
Contributor notes: Illustrative example — not an actual model run. Written to show the shape of a good answer so the prompt can be judged before you spend a call on it. Attribution: adapted from https://github.com/danielmiessler/fabric by danielmiessler, licensed MIT. Source file: https://github.com/danielmiessler/fabric/blob/main/data/patterns/analyze_paper/system.md
1 public result from 1 model
Reports go to moderators and are never shown publicly.
- **Remote work policy** applies to all salaried staff; hourly staff covered by a separate schedule - **Core hours**: 10:00-15:00 local time, during which employees must be reachable - Work outside core hours is at the employee's discretion provided **deliverable commitments** are met - **Anchor days**: teams designate up to two in-office days per week; designation is set by the team lead each quarter, not by individual request - Anchor days may be waived for **travel, caregiving, or medical nee
Compresses a document, article or set of notes into dense bullet-point notes with key terms bolded, strictly limited to what the source actually says.
CLAIM CHECK SUPPORTED - Survey ran in March - "Survey ran from 3 to 21 March" SUPPORTED - 412 responses from Team-plan customers - "412 responses from customers on the Team plan" SUPPORTED - 61% found onboarding slower than expected - "61% said onboarding took longer than expected" SUPPORTED - Nearly a fifth contacted support in week one - "18% contacted support during their first week" UNSUPPORTED - They contacted support because the setup wizard confused them - no supporting fact UNSUPPORTED
Checks a summary or draft claim by claim against a list of source facts and reports everything that was added, inferred or contradicted.
Taken together, the studies reviewed above converge on three points: structured peer feedback raises the quality of code students submit in the revision that follows, students trust feedback more when rubric criteria are visible at the moment of writing, and participation drops once feedback is ungraded. They diverge on whether the benefit survives beyond the assignment in which feedback was given, and none follows the same cohort into a later course. That is the gap this study addresses: whethe
Writes the concluding paragraph of a literature review that names the gap your study fills, then stress-tests it with the objections a sceptical reviewer would raise.
1. Databases - MEDLINE (Ovid) - core clinical trials of behavioural sleep interventions. - Embase - broader European trial coverage and conference abstracts. - PsycINFO - CBT-I trials indexed by psychological rather than medical terms. - CENTRAL - trial registry records and Cochrane-indexed RCTs. - Web of Science - citation chaining from included studies. - Grey literature: ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, plus reference lists of included trials. 2. Search string (MEDLINE/Ovid syntax) 1. exp Sleep
Produces a PRISMA-style search strategy: databases with justifications, database-specific search strings, eligibility criteria, a screening process and a blank flow diagram.
## 1. Current state of research Work on urban green space and adolescent mental health has moved from cross-sectional association to longitudinal designs, but the four sources supplied still measure exposure in three incompatible ways: distance to the nearest park (Study A), share of green cover within 500 m (Study B, Study D) and self-reported time outdoors (Study C). ## 2. Key themes and patterns - Small negative associations between green cover and self-reported internalising symptoms appe
Turns a list of sources into a structured literature review with themes, methodological critique, gaps and a synthesis, working only from the studies you supply.
ARGUMENT SUMMARY: Remote work destroyed productivity; universal return-to-office mandates and self-evident data are offered as proof. TRUTH CLAIMS: CLAIM: Remote work caused productivity to collapse. CLAIM SUPPORT EVIDENCE: - Firm-level studies of fully remote periods report lower measured output in some coordination-heavy roles; cite each study, year and outcome measure. [insert verified reference] - Manager-reported surveys in several sectors record perceived declines in collaboration. [in
Breaks a piece of writing into its individual truth claims and rates each one A-F, with supporting evidence, counter-evidence and the logical fallacies at work.
Oldest first · one level of replies
Sign in to join the discussion. Share what you learned or made with this prompt.
No comments yet
Be the first to share how this prompt worked for you.