هوش مصنوعی در پژوهش

این پرسش‌ها چارچوبی کلیدی برای ارزیابی انتقادی هر متن، مقاله یا پژوهشی فراهم می‌کنند. اهمیت آن‌ها در این است که به خواننده کمک می‌کنند تا فراتر از درک سطحی مطلب رفته و به لایه‌های عمیق‌تر آن نفوذ کند. با پاسخ به این سوالات، می‌توان مشخص کرد که آیا استدلال نویسنده منطقی و مستحکم است، آیا شواهد ارائه شده معتبر، کافی و مرتبط هستند و آیا هدف نویسنده (مثلاً اطلاع‌رسانی، متقاعدسازی یا تحلیل) به درستی محقق شده است یا خیر. این فرآیند به خواننده قدرت می‌دهد تا اطلاعات را به سادگی نپذیرد، بلکه آن را فعالانه تجزیه و تحلیل کند.

علاوه بر ارزیابی محتوای اصلی و شواهد، این سوالات به شناسایی جنبه‌های مهم دیگری مانند سوگیری‌های احتمالی نویسنده، مفروضات پنهان در استدلال‌ها و محدودیت‌های پژوهش (در صورت وجود) کمک می‌کنند. بررسی ساختار، وضوح زبان و جایگاه متن در مقایسه با دیگر آثار مشابه نیز به درک کامل‌تر و دقیق‌تر پیام و اهمیت آن یاری می‌رساند. در نهایت، استفاده از این چارچوب تحلیلی، مهارت تفکر انتقادی خواننده را تقویت کرده و او را قادر می‌سازد تا با دیدی بازتر و قضاوتی آگاهانه‌تر با متون مختلف مواجه شود.

What is the central point the author is trying to make? Can you state it clearly in your own words?
Is the purpose clear? Is it to inform, persuade, analyze, report?
Is the main argument clear, specific, and focused? Or is it vague and hard to pin down?

What kind of evidence does the author use? (e.g., data from experiments, statistics, surveys, case studies, historical documents, expert testimony, anecdotes, logical reasoning).
Is the evidence relevant to the point being made?
Is the evidence sufficient? Is there enough of it to convincingly support the claims?
Is the evidence credible and reliable? Where does it come from? Is the source trustworthy? (For data: How was it collected? Is the methodology sound?)
Does the author distinguish between fact and opinion?
Are the sources cited properly? (If applicable).

How was the research conducted? Was the method appropriate for the research question?
Are there flaws in the design? (e.g., sample size too small, lack of control group, biased sampling).
Could the results be interpreted differently?
Does the author acknowledge the limitations of their study?

What underlying assumptions does the author make? Are these assumptions reasonable or questionable?
Does the argument follow a logical progression? Are there any logical fallacies (e.g., jumping to conclusions, false dichotomies, straw man arguments)?
Does the author connect the evidence logically to the conclusions? Are there gaps in reasoning?

What is the author's perspective or stance?
Does the author present a balanced view, or do they ignore or dismiss opposing viewpoints?
Is there evidence of bias? (e.g., loaded language, selective use of evidence, emotional appeals over logic, undeclared conflicts of interest).
Does the author fairly represent the views of others they critique?

Is the article well-organized and easy to follow?
Is the language clear and precise? Or is it confusing, ambiguous, or overly technical/jargony?
Is the tone appropriate for the audience and purpose? (e.g., objective, persuasive, informative).

How does this article relate to other work in the field or on the topic? Does it build upon, challenge, or ignore other relevant work?
Is the information timely, or could it be outdated?
What is the overall significance or contribution of the article? Does it offer new insights, a useful summary, or a flawed analysis?

این پرامپت برای افرادی طراحی شده که قصد دارند برای دوره دکتری اپلای کنند و به دنبال استاد راهنمایی هستند که زمینه پژوهشی‌اش با علایق آن‌ها هم‌راستا باشد. با استفاده از این درخواست، می‌توان فهرستی از اساتید فعال در یک حوزه خاص به دست آورد که شامل نام استاد، دانشگاه محل فعالیت، لینک‌های پروفایل تحقیقاتی (مثل Google Scholar یا ResearchGate)، و خلاصه‌ای از فعالیت‌های علمی آن‌ها است. همچنین این پرامپت می‌تواند راهنمایی‌هایی برای نحوه تماس مؤثر با اساتید جهت پیشنهاد همکاری یا گرفتن پذیرش ارائه دهد.

در واقع، این ابزار یک میان‌بُر هوشمندانه برای جست‌وجوی هدفمند استاد راهنماست که فرآیند پرزحمت پیدا کردن پژوهشگر مناسب را ساده، سریع و هدفمند می‌کند و شانس موفقیت در پذیرش را افزایش می‌دهد.

I am looking to apply for a phd program in [your field] and want to find a professor whose research aligns with my interests. My specific research interests include [your specific topics].
I need you to help me identify professors who are active in this area, preferably those who have published significant papers or are leading funded projects.
Please provide a list of professors, their universities, links to their research profiles (Google Scholar, ResearchGate, etc.), and a brief summary of their work. If possible, also suggest how I should approach contacting them for collaboration or supervision.

✅ 20 ساعت آموزش مقاله‌نویسی با هوش‌مصنوعی
✅ کتابچه راهنمای مقاله‌نویسی

✅ 20 ساعت آموزش مقاله‌نویسی با هوش‌مصنوعی
✅ 10 ساعت آموزش پروپوزال و پایان‌نامه‌نویسی
✅ 6 ساعت وبینار هوش‌مصنوعی در پژوهش
✅ کتابچه تحلیل داده با هوش‌مصنوعی
✅ کتابچه راهنمای مقاله‌نویسی

✅ 5 ساعت آموزش آشنایی با مبانی مدل‌های زبانی بزرگ
✅ 15 ساعت آموزش پرامپت‌نویسی با هوش‌مصنوعی
✅ 20 ساعت آموزش مقاله‌نویسی با هوش‌مصنوعی
✅ 10 ساعت آموزش تصویرسازی با هوش‌مصنوعی
✅ 5 ساعت آموزش برنامه‌نویسی با هوش‌مصنوعی
✅ 10 ساعت آموزش پروپوزال و پایان‌نامه‌نویسی
✅ 6 ساعت وبینار هوش‌مصنوعی
✅ کتابچه تحلیل داده با هوش‌مصنوعی
✅ عضویت کانال منابع هوش‌مصنوعی
✅ کتابچه راهنمای مقاله‌نویسی

پس از این که سوالات پژوهشی و فرضیات خود را به هوش مصنوعی داده و فایل مقاله خود را آپلود کرده اید به کمک این سی پرامپت و مقالاتی که از سایت اسکوپوس یا کانسنسس در مورد جمع بندی جمع آوری کرده اید میتوانید بخش جمع بندی را دقیق تر بنویسید.

1. Restate the Thesis: Summarize the main argument or purpose of my work.

2. Summarize Key Points: Highlight the main points discussed in the body.

3. Synthesize, Don’t Summarize: Show how the points fit together.

4. Answer the “So What?” Question: Explain the significance of my findings.

5. Provide Closure: Ensure the reader feels a sense of completion.

6. Avoid Introducing New Information: Stick to what has already been discussed.

7. Reflect on the Introduction: Tie back to the opening statement or question.

8. Use a Strong Final Sentence: Leave a lasting impression.

9. Be Concise: Keep it brief and to the point.

10. Maintain a Positive Tone: End on an optimistic note.

11. Highlight Implications: Discuss the broader impact of my findings.

12. Suggest Future Research: Point out areas for further investigation.

13. Acknowledge Limitations: Be honest about any limitations in my work.

14. Use Clear and Simple Language: Avoid jargon and complex sentences.

15. Stay Objective: Keep personal opinions out unless it’s a reflective piece.

16. Reinforce the Main Message: Make sure the main takeaway is clear.

17. Use Transition Words: Ensure smooth flow from the body to the conclusion.

18. Avoid Redundancy: Don’t repeat points verbatim.

19. Be Original: Offer a fresh perspective or insight.

20. Check for Consistency: Ensure the conclusion aligns with the rest of the work.

21. Use Evidence: Support my final points with evidence.

22. Be Persuasive: Convince the reader of my argument’s validity.

23. Reflect on the Broader Context: Place my findings in a wider context.

24. Avoid Apologies: Don’t undermine my work by apologizing for its limitations.

25. Use a Formal Tone: Maintain a professional tone.

26. Be Honest: Don’t exaggerate my findings.

27. Use Active Voice: Make my writing more engaging.

28. Edit and Proofread: Ensure there are no errors.

29. Seek Feedback: Get a second opinion on my conclusion.

30. Stay True to My Voice: Let my unique style shine through.

با این مجموعه پرامپت‌ خفن، تصاویر معمولیت رو تبدیل کن به آرت‌ورک‌هایی با استایل Cel Shading. دقیقاً همون افکتی که تو انیمه‌ها، کمیک‌بوک‌ها می‌بینی! فقط کافیه یکی از این پرامپت‌ها رو امتحان کنی و نتیجه‌شو ببینی... یه دنیای کارتونی از تصویر خودت می‌سازی!

"Apply the 'Toon Shader / Cel Shading' style to the given image."

"Turn this image into a cel-shaded anime-style artwork with bold outlines and flat colors."

"Transform this image into a cel-shaded video game-style render, with stylized shadows and edge lines."

"Apply a hand-drawn cel shading effect to the image, mimicking traditional cartoon art styles."

"Render this image in the style of a cel-shaded 90s anime, with dramatic shadows and vibrant highlights."

A serene, high-resolution image showcases a charming cottage painted in faded blue, nestled in a sunlit meadow. Its red roof, aged terracotta tiles, and surrounding wildflowers create a vivid contrast against a bright sky, with detail-steeped textures on the house and nature, all illuminated by a warm, golden sunlight.

این پرامپت، هوش مصنوعی را به انجام وظیفه‌ای ظریف و مهم در نگارش علمی هدایت می‌کند: تدوین بخش نتیجه‌گیری. هوش مصنوعی ملزم است با تحلیل و ترکیب 'نکات کلیدی' استخراج شده از مجموعه منابع داده‌شده در فایل‌های CSV، به خلق نتیجه‌گیری منسجم و معنادار مبادرت ورزد. اهمیت این پرامپت در دقت و صحت آن نهفته است؛ هوش مصنوعی نه تنها باید محتوای منابع را به درستی بازتاب دهد، بلکه موظف است با رعایت کامل اصول استناددهی APA ویرایش هفتم، اعتبار علمی و حقوق مالکیت فکری منابع را به نحو احسن پاس دارد. این امر مستلزم درک عمیق از ساختار مقالات علمی و مهارت در به کارگیری دقیق فرمت‌های استنادی است.

"Please write a conclusion section using the 'Takeaway' points from the resources provided in the two CSV files. Also, include the corresponding APA 7 style citations for each source referenced."

I have a set of references on {your title}. Could you write a literature review using these references in proper academic style, including APA 7th edition in-text citations and a reference list?

1. Research Design: Is the research design appropriate for the research questions or hypothesis?

2. Sample Size: Is the sample size adequate to provide reliable and valid results?

3. Sampling Method: Was the sampling method appropriate and unbiased?

4. Data Collection: Were the data collection methods suitable for the research objectives?

5. Instrumentation: Were the instruments or tools used for data collection valid and reliable?

6. Data Analysis: Were the data analysis techniques appropriate for the type of data collected?

7. Control Variables: Were control variables identified and accounted for in the study?

8. Ethical Considerations: Were ethical guidelines followed in the research process?

9. Replication: Can the study be replicated by other researchers?

10. Limitations: Were the limitations of the study acknowledged and addressed?

11. Validity: Does the study have internal and external validity?

12. Reliability: Are the results consistent and reproducible?

13. Generalizability: Can the findings be generalized to a larger population?

روایی (Validity): روایی به این معناست که ابزار پژوهش شما واقعاً چیزی را که قصد دارید اندازه‌گیری کنید، اندازه‌گیری می‌کند. روایی نشان می‌دهد که آیا پژوهش شما به سوال پژوهشی اصلی پاسخ می‌دهد و نتایج آن چقدر معتبر و قابل اعتماد هستند. انواع مختلفی از روایی وجود دارد که هر کدام جنبه‌های مختلفی از اعتبار اندازه‌گیری را بررسی می‌کنند، از جمله روایی محتوا، روایی ملاکی و روایی سازه.

پایایی (Reliability): پایایی به سازگاری و ثبات نتایج اندازه‌گیری اشاره دارد. یک ابزار پایا، نتایج مشابهی را در صورت تکرار اندازه‌گیری در شرایط مشابه ارائه می‌دهد. پایایی نشان می‌دهد که اندازه‌گیری‌ها چقدر عاری از خطای تصادفی هستند و می‌توان به نتایج حاصل از ابزار اعتماد کرد. انواع مختلفی از پایایی وجود دارد، از جمله پایایی بازآزمایی، پایایی همسانی درونی و پایایی بین ارزیابان.

1. Does the instrument cover all relevant aspects of the concept being measured?
2. Are the items representative of the content domain of interest?
3. Would experts in the field agree that the instrument adequately samples the content?

1. Does the instrument appear to measure what it is supposed to measure?
2. Do participants perceive the questions as relevant and understandable?
3. On the surface, does the instrument seem appropriate for the intended purpose?

1. Do the instrument's scores correlate with an established criterion measure?
2. Does the instrument accurately predict future outcomes related to the construct? (Predictive)
3. Do the instrument's scores align with scores from another instrument measuring the same construct at the same time? (Concurrent)

1. Does the instrument truly measure the theoretical construct it intends to measure?
2. Does the instrument show high correlation with measures of related constructs? (Convergent)
3. Does the instrument show low or no correlation with measures of unrelated constructs? (Discriminant)

1. Can changes in the dependent variable confidently be attributed to the independent variable?
2. Are there any confounding variables that could explain the observed effects?
3. In an experiment, were control and experimental groups comparable at baseline?

1. Can the findings be generalized to other populations or settings?
2. Is the sample representative of the broader population of interest?
3. Would the results hold true in different contexts or time periods?

1. Are the scores consistent when the instrument is administered to the same people at different times?
2. Is there a high correlation between scores from Time 1 and Time 2?
3. Are the measurements stable over time?

1. Do two different but equivalent versions of the instrument yield similar scores?
2. Is there a high correlation between scores from Form A and Form B?
3. Are the two forms measuring the same construct consistently?

1. Do the two halves of the instrument produce similar scores?
2. Is there a high correlation between scores from the first half and the second half (or odd vs. even items)?
3. Are the items within the instrument internally consistent?

1. Do the items within the instrument consistently measure the same construct?
2. Is there a high Cronbach's Alpha or similar internal consistency coefficient?
3. Are the items inter-correlated and measuring a unified underlying construct?

1. Do different raters or observers agree in their judgments or ratings?
2. Is there a high level of agreement (e.g., Cohen's Kappa, ICC) between raters?
3. Are the ratings consistent across different individuals assessing the same phenomenon?

طوفان فکری یک روش حیاتی در فرآیند توسعه ایده و تحقیق است، زیرا به عنوان نقطه شروعی عمل می‌کند که جرقه‌های خلاقیت را می‌زند و گستره وسیعی از احتمالات را در اختیار قرار می‌دهد. این روش، به ویژه از طریق تکنیک‌هایی مانند نگارش آزاد که امکان بیان بی‌واسطه و بدون سانسور ایده‌ها را فراهم می‌آورد، به محققان و متفکران کمک می‌کند تا از الگوهای فکری مرسوم فراتر رفته و زوایای جدید و نوآورانه‌ای را کشف کنند. طوفان فکری فضایی را برای بررسی ایده‌های نامتعارف و به چالش کشیدن فرضیات اولیه فراهم می‌کند و در نهایت منجر به توسعه راه‌حل‌های جامع‌تر، خلاقانه‌تر و موثرتر در زمینه‌های تحقیق و حل مسئله می‌گردد. به طور خلاصه، طوفان فکری نه تنها ابزاری برای تولید ایده‌های اولیه است، بلکه کاتالیزوری برای نوآوری و پیشرفت در هر زمینه‌ای به شمار می‌رود.

 I am going to investigate the role of{ } within the field of {}. Please provide a five-paragraph freewriting brainstorming session to generate ideas related to this topic.

 Delve deeper into the concepts presented in paragraph 4 of the freewriting and elaborate further on those ideas.

Generate 10 "do/does" type questions that arise from the ideas presented in the paragraphs above.

 Break down the following question into 5 sub-questions: {Please provide the question you want broken down here.}

برای ارزیابی یک پژوهش، بررسی جنبه‌های کلیدی روش‌شناسی آن ضروری است. این بررسی شامل ارزیابی حجم نمونه، روش نمونه‌گیری، جمع‌آوری داده‌ها، ابزارهای اندازه‌گیری، طراحی مطالعه، و متغیرهای کنترل برای اطمینان از اعتبار و دقت نتایج است. همچنین، ارزیابی اعتبار خارجی و داخلی، و محدودیت‌های زمانی به تعیین قابلیت تعمیم و اطمینان از اندازه‌گیری دقیق مفاهیم مورد نظر کمک می‌کند.

Assess if the sample size is large enough to provide reliable results. Consider whether the sample is sufficiently representative of the population under study and if it has enough power to detect statistically significant effects. Insufficient sample size may lead to unreliable results and limit the ability to generalize findings.

Evaluate if the sampling method might introduce bias or limit generalizability. Was the sampling method random? Was biased sampling used? For example, convenience sampling might skew results due to lack of representation of the target population. Consider how the chosen sampling method may affect the validity and generalizability of the findings

Consider if the data collection methods could have influenced the results. Were the data collection methods standardized and valid? For example, were questionnaires properly designed and avoiding response bias? Were interviews conducted in a structured and careful manner? Consider how the choice and implementation of data collection methods might affect the quality and validity of the data collected

Check if the measurement tools or instruments used were valid and reliable. Do the tools accurately measure the intended trait or construct (validity)? Do the tools provide consistent results over time and between raters (reliability)? The use of invalid or unreliable measurement tools can lead to inaccurate results and misinterpretations

Determine if the study design was appropriate for the research questions. Was the study design experimental, quasi-experimental, correlational, or descriptive? Does the study design allow researchers to effectively answer the research questions and explore causal relationships? Inappropriate study design may hinder obtaining valid and reliable answers to research questions

Identify if all relevant control variables were controlled for in the study. Were researchers able to minimize the effects of confounding variables? Failure to control for important variables can lead to misleading results and make it difficult to interpret the relationship between independent and dependent variables

Assess if the findings can be generalized to other populations or settings (external validity). Is the sample studied representative of other populations? Are the study conditions generalizable to real-world settings? Low external validity may limit the applicability of the findings outside the study setting

Evaluate if the study accurately measures what it intends to measure (internal validity). Are the study results truly due to the variables being investigated, or have other factors contributed to the results? Does the study design prevent bias and error? Low internal validity can weaken confidence in the causal relationship between variables

Consider if the timing of the study could have affected the results (temporal limitations). Were there specific events or socio-cultural changes during the study period that might have influenced the findings? For example, a study on public attitudes at a specific time may yield different results at another time. Considering temporal limitations helps to better understand the context of the results and their generalizability over time.