Diagnose and score cohesion & flow writing quality in the Results section of English psychology/neuroscience papers. Use when checking or reviewing a Results section for: (1) connectives and transitions, (2) sentence-to-sentence cohesion (reference chains, lexical recurrence), (3) paragraph coherenc
编程
discussion-cohesion-diagnosis
试用Diagnose cohesion in the Discussion of an English psychology research paper. Covers both (1) local-level cohesion devices — connectives, reference chains, citation as glue — and (2) global-level narrative thread — forward-moving wrap, take-home message, navigational signposting. Triggers on "check D
它能做什么
Diagnose cohesion in the Discussion of an English psychology research paper. Covers both (1) local-level cohesion devices — connectives, reference chains, citation as glue — and (2) global-level narrative thread — forward-moving wrap, take-home message, navigational signposting. Triggers on "check Discussion cohesion", "is my discussion connected", "Discussion 衔接", "narrative flow check", etc. Does NOT generate or rewrite prose.
技能文档
Discussion Cohesion & Narrative-Thread Diagnosis
Theory basis
Science Research Writing Unit 4.1.1 (Wrapping the discussion in a narrative) + 4.2.2 (citation positioning sentence patterns: "We first demonstrated that X, consistent with...", "In contrast...", "In line with this...") + 4.2.2 Q&A "If I decide to 'reboot' the reader, how do I choose which part/s of the article to revisit?" (narrative navigation).
Two-level rubric
Level 1 — Local cohesion (device-level)
- Connectives — additive (furthermore, in addition), adversative (however, in contrast), causal (therefore, consequently), sequential (then, subsequently). Appropriate density (not over- or under-used).
- Reference chains — pronouns (this/these/that), demonstratives, lexical repetition. No broken or ambiguous reference.
- Citation as glue — each citation is integrated with a clear relationship word/phrase (confirm / contrast / extend), not dropped as a bare parenthetical.
- Paragraph topic sentences — first sentence of each paragraph carries the topic forward; not a generic "Also, ..." chain.
Level 2 — Global narrative thread (flow-level)
- Controlling idea — one message persists from opening to closing.
- Forward motion — every paragraph moves the reader closer to the conclusion; no backtracking or side-tracks.
- Navigational signposting — explicit "we will return to...", "in the next section...", "this raises the question..." for non-linear moves.
- Take-home persistence — the take-home message stated in the opening is reinforced (not contradicted) by the closing.
What this skill diagnoses
- Connective density and variety — too few = choppy; too many = mechanical
- Reference clarity — does "this" / "these" / "that" have a unique, retrievable referent?
- Citation integration — is each citation tied with a clear relationship word?
- Topic sentence quality — does the first sentence of each paragraph do real work?
- Controlling-idea persistence — is there one main message throughout?
- Forward motion — any stalling or backtracking?
- Closing–opening alignment — does the conclusion echo the take-home stated in the opening?
Diagnostic signals
| Signal | Means |
|---|---|
| "Also, ..." / "Moreover, ..." / "In addition, ..." opens 4+ consecutive paragraphs | Mechanical connective chain; vary the opening |
| "This suggests..." where "this" could mean 2 prior things | Reference ambiguity |
| "(Smith, 2020; Jones, 2018; Lee, 2019)" dropped without relationship word | Citation as decoration, not glue |
| Paragraph 3 introduces a new sub-topic unrelated to anything earlier | Side-track; breaks forward motion |
| Last sentence contradicts or shifts from the first sentence's claim | Closing–opening misalignment |
| Take-home from the opening is unrecognisable in the closing | Thread lost |
Output format
## Cohesion & Narrative Diagnosis
### Level 1 — Local cohesion
- Connective density: [score] (per 1000 words; corpus baseline = X)
- Reference clarity: [score]
- Citation integration: [score]
- Topic sentence quality: [score]
### Level 2 — Global narrative thread
- Controlling idea: [extracted]
- Forward motion: [pass / concern / fail]
- Take-home persistence: [pass / concern / fail]
- Closing–opening alignment: [pass / concern / fail]
### Top issues (severity: critical / major / minor)
1. ...
2. ...
Academic integrity
Does not generate or rewrite the Discussion. Only diagnoses and suggests.
References (to be filled in Phase 2)
references/rubric.mdreferences/checklist.mdreferences/examples/
相关技能
Diagnose the structural completeness and move ordering of the Discussion section in an English psychology research paper. Checks whether the draft contains expected moves (revisit results, map to literature, identify applications, limitations, future work, achievement/contribution statement) and whe
Diagnose logical argumentation in the Discussion of an English psychology research paper. Checks argument chains (premise → evidence → conclusion), causal claims (does X cause Y, or correlate?), and the distinction between data, interpretation, and speculation. Triggers on "check logic", "argument c
Diagnose grammar in the Discussion of an English psychology research paper. Covers tense choice (Present Simple for permanent truths vs Past Simple for study-specific findings), subject-verb agreement, article usage, voice (active vs passive), and punctuation. Triggers on "check Discussion tense", "
Diagnose academic-writing conventions in the Discussion of an English psychology research paper. Checks the Achievement/Contribution statement (placement, type among 4 — method / results / impact / application), limitations writing, future-work conventions, citation density and function, and the use
Diagnose vocabulary in the Discussion of an English psychology research paper. Checks (1) use of academic register and high-frequency academic expressions from the 5 functional categories in *Science Research Writing* 4.4.2, (2) appropriate modal verb usage across the 6 categories in 4.5, and (3) av