Loading prompt…
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.
Version 1 · 2 variables · 2 required
Fill in the values below — the customized prompt updates as you type. marks a required value.
The topic of the literature review whose conclusion you are writing.
Your own synthesis: what the studies converge on, where they disagree, and what none of them has done.
Fill in Research topic, What the literature shows 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/BevalZ/awesome-prompt-for-academic by BevalZ, licensed MIT. Source file: https://github.com/BevalZ/awesome-prompt-for-academic/blob/main/Prompts/EN/general.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.
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.
SUMMARY Spaced retrieval beat massed review on delayed statistics tests, but weak transparency limits confidence. AUTHORS Okonkwo, A.; Lindqvist, M. AUTHOR ORGANIZATIONS Department of Psychology, Northfield University. FINDINGS - Spaced group outperformed massed group on the eight-week delayed test. - Reported effect: d = 0.42, 95% CI [0.13, 0.71], p = .004. - No advantage on the immediate post-test, only on delayed testing. STUDY OVERVIEW - Randomized classroom trial, 214 undergradua
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.
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.