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
文档
discussion-conventions-diagnosis
试用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
它能做什么
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 of "happy words" / appropriate hedging. Triggers on "check conventions", "contribution statement", "happy words", "limitation check", "future work check", "Discussion 学术规范", "讨论贡献", "讨论局限性", etc. Does NOT generate or rewrite prose.
技能文档
Discussion Conventions Diagnosis
Theory basis
Science Research Writing Unit 4.1.1 (4 types of contribution) + 4.2.2 Q&A "Is there a difference between ACHIEVEMENT and CONTRIBUTION?" + 4.2.3 ("Identify potential applications") + 4.2.2 (How many citations / what function).
4 types of contribution (4.1.1)
| Type | Definition | Signal phrase |
|---|---|---|
| Method | Modified or new method that improves on existing methods | "we developed a novel...", "the proposed method outperforms..." |
| Results | Better / more accurate results than prior studies | "we first demonstrated that...", "to our knowledge, this is the first..." |
| Impact | Game-changer / sets new direction / invalidates prior work | "our findings challenge the assumption that...", "we propose a paradigm shift..." |
| Application | New or extended real-world application | "could be used to...", "has implications for clinical practice..." |
Achievement vs Contribution (4.2.2 Q&A)
- Achievement = what you actually did in the study (e.g., "we collected data from 500 participants")
- Contribution = what the field / world gains (e.g., "we provide the first evidence that...")
- Both should be present, with the contribution often positioned as the take-home message.
What this skill diagnoses
- Achievement/contribution statement presence — is there an explicit statement?
- Type classification — which of the 4 types is being claimed? Is it consistent with the actual study?
- Placement — is it in the opening moves (not buried)?
- "Happy words" usage — is the claim hedged firmly (e.g., "to our knowledge", "we first demonstrated", "compelling evidence") without over-claiming ("prove")?
- Limitations conventions — are they stated explicitly, with appropriate scope, and not as throwaway?
- Future work conventions — is the future-work section directional (specific next steps) rather than vague ("more research is needed")?
- Citation density — count per Discussion; compared to corpus baseline.
- Citation function — does each citation do confirm / contrast / extend work?
Diagnostic signals
| Signal | Means |
|---|---|
| "Our study made a contribution to the field of..." | Generic — should name the specific contribution |
| "We proved that..." | Overclaim — "prove" is rarely appropriate in a single study |
| "More research is needed" (no specifics) | Weak future work — should be directional |
| Limitations are one vague sentence | Surface-level — should be specific (sample, design, measure) |
| Contribution in the last paragraph | Placement violation — should be in the opening |
| Multiple contribution types claimed without support | Type-mixing — pick the strongest one and own it |
| Citation density <5 or >40 in a Discussion of ~1500 words | Density outside typical range |
Output format
## Conventions Diagnosis
### Achievement/Contribution
- [✓/✗] Achievement statement present
- [✓/✗] Contribution statement present
- Type claimed: [method / results / impact / application]
- Type appropriate for study? [yes / concern / no]
- Placement: [opening / mid / closing]
- Hedging level: [appropriate / over-claimed / under-claimed]
### Limitations
- [✓/✗/⚠] Present
- Quality: [specific / vague / throwaway]
### Future work
- [✓/✗/⚠] Present
- Quality: [directional / vague / missing]
### Citation audit
- Total count: N
- Density: N / 1000 words
- Function distribution: confirm=X / contrast=Y / extend=Z
- Coverage: [all three functions / only confirm / etc.]
### Top issues (severity: critical / major / minor)
1. ...
Cross-reference
- Hedging word choice is owned by the Vocabulary skill. This skill owns the policy (when should you hedge, when should you commit?).
- Citation positioning in sentences is owned by the Cohesion skill (L1 — citation as glue). This skill owns the density and function.
Academic integrity
Does not generate or rewrite. Only diagnoses.
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 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 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
Academic writing revision advisor for the Results section of psychology and STEMM research papers. Checks claim-hedging alignment, causal language appropriateness, statistical reporting completeness, and interpretation boundaries. Triggers when the user asks to review, revise, or check a Results section draft, or mentions hedging, claim strength, overclaiming, or causal language in academic writing.
诊断英文心理学论文 Results 部分的时态、语法与句法问题（一般过去时/现在时使用、主谓一致、冠词、句子片段、run-on sentence、平行结构），基于权威期刊论文提取的 examples 提供诊断依据与修改建议。当用户提供 Results 草稿要求检查时态/语法/句法并输出结构化诊断报告时使用。