38 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Design a critical thinking task targeting specific skills like evaluating evidence, identifying bias, or analysing arguments. Use when embedding critical analysis into subject lessons.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Design discipline-specific critical thinking tasks grounded in knowledge-contingent reasoning rather than generic skills. Use when embedding higher-order thinking into subject content.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Design discipline-specific critical thinking tasks grounded in knowledge-contingent reasoning rather than generic skills. Use when embedding higher-order thinking into subject content.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Design a critical thinking task targeting specific skills like evaluating evidence, identifying bias, or analysing arguments. Use when embedding critical analysis into subject lessons.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Trains the HUMAN user's critical thinking through four modes: drill (argument-analysis items with a single defensible answer, judge stance), scene (Socratic exploration of synthetic scenes or user-supplied material, no verdicts on interpretations; includes a configure track — design the information request and verification plan for a decision before any analysis), expedition (guided audit of impossible-tier problems from verified packs), and detective (a runtime-generated multi-layer case worked as an escape room, guide-and-judge stance). Use when the user wants to practice critical thinking, analyze arguments, hunt assumptions, examine bias, train reasoning, or decide what information a decision needs first. Triggers: critical thinking practice, train my thinking, drill, scene, byom, configure, information plan, what would I need to know, spot manipulation tactics, scam literacy, 批判思考練習, 話術辨識, detective, 查案, 破案, 偵探.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
当用户在反思自己的认知局限、质疑群体共识、或在问"如何独立思考""怎么判断自己是不是被洗脑了""为什么我总觉得自己是对的""怎么避免从众"时激活。 核心信号：用户在做"元认知"——审视自己的思维过程本身，或在群体压力下试图保持独立判断。 不适用于：需要快速决策的紧急情况、纯技术性问题、不需要反思的信息查询。
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Evaluates scientific claims and evidence quality. Applies to experimental design validity, biases and confounders, statistical interpretation, evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), and teaching critical analysis. Supports evidence appraisal and identifying flaws; formal peer review writing belongs to peer-review.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Evaluate research rigor. Assess methodology, experimental design, statistical validity, biases, confounding, evidence quality (GRADE, Cochrane ROB), for critical analysis of scientific claims.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating claims/evidence quality use scientific-critical-thinking; for quantitative scoring frameworks use scholar-evaluation.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Evaluate scientific claims and evidence quality. Use for assessing experimental design validity, identifying biases and confounders, applying evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), or teaching critical analysis. Best for understanding evidence quality, identifying flaws. For formal peer review writing use peer-review.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Evaluate scientific claims and evidence quality. Use for assessing experimental design validity, identifying biases and confounders, applying evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), or teaching critical analysis. Best for understanding evidence quality, identifying flaws. For formal peer review writing use peer-review.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating claims/evidence quality use scientific-critical-thinking; for quantitative scoring frameworks use scholar-evaluation.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Evaluate research rigor. Assess methodology, experimental design, statistical validity, biases, confounding, evidence quality (GRADE, Cochrane ROB), for critical analysis of scientific claims.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Evaluate scientific claims and evidence quality. Use for assessing experimental design validity, identifying biases and confounders, applying evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), or teaching critical analysis. Best for understanding evidence quality, identifying flaws. For formal peer review writing use peer-review.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Generate a Socratic questioning sequence that develops conceptual understanding through guided inquiry. Use when facilitating philosophical discussions, concept exploration, or critical examination.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
After any AI-generated explanation, require the learner to identify one place it could be wrong, one thing to check, and one source to consult. Builds epistemic vigilance — treats AI output as a claim to evaluate, not truth to absorb.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Generate argument structure scaffolds using Toulmin, PEEL, or CER frameworks for a specific claim or question. Use when teaching argumentative or analytical writing across any subject.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Design a source evaluation protocol using lateral reading and credibility checks for digital information. Use when students need to evaluate websites, online sources, or social media claims.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Design a media deconstruction protocol analysing persuasion, bias, or representation in media texts. Use when teaching students to critically read advertisements, news, or social media content.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Design a multi-round questioning sequence for interrogating AI chatbot answers, tracking how responses shift and distinguishing genuine updates from sycophantic capitulation. Use when teaching students to probe AI critically.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Design a structured protocol for auditing AI-generated text against Ennis's six CT standards. Use when students need to critically evaluate AI output in any subject.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Evaluating scientific evidence and claims. Covers study design hierarchy (RCT to expert opinion), effect sizes (OR, RR, NNT, Cohen's d), confounding, p-value vs clinical significance, GRADE quality assessment, reproducibility, and bias types (selection, information, confounding, reporting). Use when reading a paper or assessing claims.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Structured peer review of manuscripts and grants. 7-stage evaluation: initial assessment, section review, statistical rigor, reproducibility, figure integrity, ethics, writing. Covers CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA and report structure. For evidence quality see scientific-critical-thinking; scoring see scholar-evaluation.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Applies anti-sycophancy checklist to override agreement bias. Use when analyzing contested claims or avoiding socially convenient but inaccurate conclusions.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。