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 (e.g., data from experiments, statistics, surveys, case studies, historical documents, expert testimony, anecdotes, logical reasoning).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.

مایندمپ‌ها ابزارهای بسیار مفیدی برای فهم بهتر مقالات هستند. چرا که مایندمپ‌ها ساختار مقاله را به صورت بصری نشان می‌دهند و به شما کمک می‌کنند ارتباط بین ایده‌ها و مفاهیم اصلی مقاله را به راحتی درک کنید. با استفاده از مایندمپ، شما می‌توانید یک دید کلی از مقاله به دست آورید و به سرعت به بخش‌های مهم آن دسترسی پیدا کنید. به طور خلاصه، مایندمپ به شما کمک می‌کند تا اطلاعات مقاله را به طور سازمان‌یافته و مؤثرتری پردازش و درک کنید.

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."

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?

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.

This is my research purpose {research purpose} and this is my main question{main question} please do SMART analysis on this goal and question

در نگارش یک مقاله یکی از مهم ترین جنبه ها، انتخاب روش تحقیق درست و همراستا با هدف پژوهش است. اگر این همراستایی وجود نداشته باشد، پژوهش از اعتبار ساقط شده و نمیتواند به هدف مطلوب برسد. به کمک این پرامپت ها میتوانیم این همراستایی را در مقالات دیگران یا خودمان بررسی کنیم.

I have done this analysis on my article. Please do the same process for the article that I have sent to you

1.  What is the primary verb or action implied by my research question/hypothesis?
2.  What specific outcome or piece of knowledge do I ultimately want to achieve by answering this question/testing this hypothesis?
3.  What are the core concepts or variables involved, and how precisely are they defined in my question/hypothesis?

1.  Does the fundamental purpose of my chosen research design directly match the primary verb/goal identified in Question I.1?
2.  Can this specific research design actually provide the type of answer or evidence needed (as identified in Question I.2)?
3.  How will this design allow me to observe, measure, or capture data on the key variables/concepts identified in Question I.3? Are the methods inherent to the design suitable for these specific variables?

1.  If my hypothesis implies causality (X causes Y), does my design include the necessary elements: manipulation of the independent variable AND control/comparison group?
2.  If my question explores relationships (X is related to Y), does my design allow me to measure both variables effectively without needing to manipulate them or imply causation directly?
3.  Does the design allow me to account for or control potential confounding variables that could offer alternative explanations for my findings?

1.  What kind of data is essential to genuinely answer my research question/test my hypothesis?
2.  Does my chosen research design naturally generate this specific type of data?
3.  Are the typical data analysis techniques associated with this design appropriate for the kind of answer I am seeking?

1.  Who or what is the target population or unit of analysis for my research question/hypothesis?
2.  Does my chosen design, including its sampling strategy, allow me feasible and appropriate access to this population or unit of analysis?
3.  Is this research design ethically appropriate for my specific question and participant group? Does it minimize risk and respect participant rights?
4.  Is this research design realistically achievable given my resources?

1.  What are the main strengths of this specific design in the context of my research question/hypothesis?
2.  What are the inherent limitations or weaknesses of this design concerning my specific question/hypothesis? Are these limitations acceptable given my research goals?
3.  Have I considered alternative research designs? If so, why is the chosen design superior or more suitable for addressing my specific research question/hypothesis compared to those alternatives?
4.  Looking back at my research question/hypothesis, can I confidently and clearly articulate precisely how the steps, procedures, and expected outcomes of this specific research design will lead directly to an answer or evidence relevant to that question/hypothesis?

این دستور انگلیسی از هوش مصنوعی می‌خواهد که نقش یک معلم شخصی را بازی کند. ابتدا باید یک سرفصل‌بندی (outline) برای موضوع درخواستی کاربر بسازد، سپس هر بخش از سرفصل را با توضیحات کافی (۲-۳ پاراگراف) تدریس کند و مهم‌تر از همه، پس از هر بخش توقف کرده و از کاربر بپرسد که آیا سوالی دارد یا نه. این روش، یادگیری را ساختاریافته، تعاملی و گام‌به‌گام می‌کند، به کاربر اجازه می‌دهد با سرعت خودش پیش برود و ابهاماتش را رفع کند، و در نهایت به درک عمیق‌تر و مدیریت‌شده‌تر موضوعات، به‌خصوص موارد پیچیده، کمک می‌کند.

Please create an outline to teach me about the {things you need to learn}. For each section of this outline, provide a 2-3 paragraph explanation to teach that session. After teaching each section, ask if I have any questions before proceeding.

آنالیز کلیدواژه‌های مهم و مرتبط به یک سوال پژوهشی، یکی از گام‌های اولیه و بنیادین در فرآیند پژوهش است. برای این کار، ابتدا چندین سوال پژوهشی مرتبط تدوین کرده و مفاهیم کلیدی آن‌ها را استخراج کنید. سپس با استفاده از این کلیدواژه‌های اولیه در پایگاه داده اسکوپوس جستجو نمایید. در مرحله بعد، با بهره‌گیری از قابلیت‌های تحلیلی و هوش مصنوعی اسکوپوس (مانند آنالیز نتایج، شناسایی روندهای موضوعی و کلیدواژه‌های نویسندگان/ایندکس)، لیست خود را پالایش، گسترش و بهینه کنید. این فرآیند تکرارشونده به شما کمک می‌کند تا مجموعه‌ای جامع و دقیق از کلیدواژه‌ها برای یک مرور ادبیات کامل و موثر به دست آورید.

Extract Seed Concepts for this question and create 3 questions for that in a concise way:{your first question}

این پرامپت‌ها به ما کمک می‌کنند تا چارچوب نظری صریح یا ضمنی‌ای که شالوده تحقیق را تشکیل می‌دهد، شناسایی کنیم. با فهمیدن مفاهیم اصلی، روابط بین آن‌ها، مفروضات بنیادین و نحوه استفاده از تئوری، می‌توانیم منطق، اعتبار و انسجام مطالعه را بسنجیم. این تحلیل همچنین جایگاه پژوهش در بدنه دانش موجود و محدودیت‌های احتمالی ناشی از دیدگاه نظری اتخاذ شده را آشکار می‌سازد و به درک بهتر یافته‌ها کمک می‌کند.

1.  Scan for explicit statements identifying the core theory/model guiding this study. What is its name and who are the key originators mentioned?
2.  What are the primary concepts/constructs drawn from this specific theory that the authors define and use?
3.  How do these key concepts relate to each other according to the authors' description of the framework? Are there stated propositions or assumptions relevant to the study?
4.  Why was this framework chosen? How does it connect to the research question(s) and help explain or analyze the topic?
5.  Did the authors use the entire framework, focus on specific parts, adapt/modify it, or combine it with others? What adaptations are noted?

1.  What central concepts/variables are repeatedly used? Which theories/theorists are frequently cited when these concepts are discussed?
2.  Examine the hypotheses/argument: How are key concepts suggested to relate? What underlying logic explains these connections? Does this resemble a known theory?
3.  What fundamental assumptions about behavior, society, or knowledge seem to underpin the research framing and investigation?
4.  Which schools of thought or theoretical traditions does the literature review engage with most heavily? How is the study positioned within this literature?
5.  Based on concepts, relationships, assumptions, and literature engagement, what established theory/perspective provides the most coherent explanation for the authors' overall approach?