「theoretical」の検索結果

VS-Enhanced Theoretical Framework Architect with Critique & Visualization Full VS 5-Phase process: Modal theory avoidance, Long-tail exploration, differentiated framework presentation Absorbed A3 (Devil's Advocate) critique and A6 (Conceptual Framework Visualizer) capabilities Use when: building theoretical foundations, designing conceptual models, deriving hypotheses, critiquing frameworks, visualizing models Triggers: theoretical framework, 이론적 프레임워크, conceptual model, 개념적 모형, hypothesis derivation, critique, devil's advocate, 반론, visualization, diagram

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。

Derive a theoretical result step-by-step from first principles or established theorems, with every step explicitly justified and special cases checked. Use when deriving a formula or theorem from first principles, proving a mathematical statement by logical deduction, re-deriving a textbook result for verification or adaptation, extending a known result to a more general setting, or producing a self-contained derivation for a paper or thesis.

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。

First-principles strategy — strip away conventional assumptions and find the theoretical maximum for your business. Three modes. Diagnostic mode runs a full session (45+ min) to define your theoretical maximum, map the gap honestly, classify constraints, invert for failure modes, set strategic intent, and work backwards to your first intervention. Review mode (15-20 min) checks whether your theoretical maximum has shifted, whether the gap has changed, and whether you're still climbing the right peak. Alert mode defines constraint-shift, peak-shift, and local-peak triggers that tell you when to reassess. Use when someone is stuck optimising incrementally, when conventional wisdom is driving strategy, when a new technology or regulation changes what's physically possible, or when you suspect the business is climbing a local peak. Integrates with company-context.md. Based on practice by Eterdis (eterdis.com).

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。

A first step in the data analysis of Mass Spectrometry (MS) based proteomics data is to identify peptides and proteins. With this respect the huge number of experimental mass spectra typically have to be assigned to theoretical peptides derived from a sequence database. Search engines are used for this purpose. These tools compare each of the observed spectra to all candidate theoretical spectra derived from the sequence data base and calculate a score for each comparison. The observed spectrum

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。

"Apply Grounded Theory (Glaser and Strauss) to build theory inductively from qualitative data through open, axial, and selective coding. Use this skill when the user needs to develop new theory from data rather than test existing hypotheses, conduct theoretical sampling and constant comparison, determine when theoretical saturation is reached, or when they ask 'what theory explains this phenomenon', 'how do I code qualitative data systematically', or 'when do I stop collecting data'.".

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。

An uncompromising Academic Research Engineer. Operates with absolute scientific rigor, objective criticism, and zero flair. Focuses on theoretical correctness, formal verification, and optimal implementation across any required technology.

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。

Bugcrowd-specific reporting tactics complementing report-writing: VRT category search-and-fallback strategy when no exact match exists, manual severity override when VRT defaults underrate impact, severity-request paragraph as first body section, OOS-clause rebuttal templates (rate limiting on auth-flow endpoints, debug-info framing, user-enumeration with sensitive PII, theoretical-issue counter), chained-finding cross-reference patterns, target selection for QA-vs-prod programs, researcher-side hygiene (Bugcrowdninja email alias, account state restoration, friendly-tester posture). Use when filing a Bugcrowd submission, when VRT default seems wrong, when triager closes as OOS or downgrades severity, when chaining linked submissions, or when scope distinguishes production from QA. Pairs with report-writing and triage-validation.

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。

Research Coordinator v12.0 - Human-Centered Edition (Systematic Review Automation) Context-persistent platform with 24 specialized agents across 9 categories (A-G, I, X). Features: Human Checkpoints First, VS Methodology, Paradigm Detection, Systematic Review Automation. Supports quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods research, and systematic review automation. Language: English. Responds in Korean when user input is Korean. Triggers: research question, theoretical framework, hypothesis, literature review, meta-analysis, effect size, IRB, PRISMA, statistical analysis, sample size, bias, journal, peer review, conceptual framework, visualization, systematic review, qualitative, phenomenology, grounded theory, thematic analysis, mixed methods, interview, focus group, ethnography, action research, paper retrieval, AI screening, RAG builder, humanization, AI pattern detection

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。

Proofread and verify academic papers in LaTeX. Runs 19 sequential checks covering titles, consistency, citations, formatting, theoretical tension in motivation, concise results reporting, cross-section repetition, em-dash usage, and auxiliary-text-to-footnote conversion. Trigger when user says "check paper" / "proofread" / "paper-checker" / "校对" / "核查论文".

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。

Conduct rigorous thematic analysis (TA) of qualitative data following Braun and Clarke's (2006) six-phase framework. Use whenever the user mentions 'thematic analysis', 'TA', 'Braun and Clarke', 'qualitative coding', 'identifying themes', or asks for help analysing interviews, focus groups, open-ended survey responses, or transcripts to identify patterns. Also trigger for questions about inductive vs theoretical coding, semantic vs latent themes, essentialist vs constructionist epistemology, building a thematic map, or writing up a qualitative findings section. Covers all six phases, the four upfront analytic decisions, the 15-point quality checklist, and the five common pitfalls. Produces a Word document write-up and an annotated thematic map. Does NOT cover IPA, grounded theory, discourse analysis, conversation analysis, or narrative analysis — use a different method for those.

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。

Academic paper writing skill with 12-agent pipeline. v2.5: Style Calibration (learn author's writing voice from past papers) + Writing Quality Check (writing quality checklist for natural prose). Supports IMRaD, literature review, theoretical, case study, policy brief, and conference paper structures. APA 7.0 (default), Chicago, MLA, IEEE, Vancouver citation formats. Bilingual abstracts (zh-TW + EN). Multi-format output (LaTeX, DOCX, PDF, Markdown). Triggers on: write paper, academic paper, paper outline, write abstract, revise paper, check citations, convert to LaTeX, guide my paper, parse reviews, revision roadmap, 寫論文, 學術論文, 論文大綱, 寫摘要, 修改論文, 檢查引用, 引導我寫論文, 帶我規劃論文, 逐章規劃, 論文架構, 審查意見, 修訂路線圖.

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。

Systematic strategic planning framework for philosophy and interdisciplinary academic papers targeting preprint platforms (PhilArchive, arXiv, PhilSci-Archive). Use when users want to: (1) plan a paper on a specific topic, (2) identify research gaps and assess originality, (3) develop optimized paper outlines, (4) prepare for preprint submission, or (5) understand platform requirements and writing standards. Triggered by phrases like 'plan a paper on,' 'help me design a paper about,' 'identify research gaps in,' 'is this idea original,' or when users need structured research planning. The skill guides through three phases: Platform Analysis (identifying target venue and studying sample papers), Theoretical Framework (AI-driven literature search and gap identification), and Outline Optimization (structured design with reviewer-perspective self-assessment). Each phase includes quality evaluation standards and validation checkpoints. Output: optimized detailed outline ready for systematic writing (use with academic-paper-composer skill).

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。

Render an interactive options payoff chart — expiry P&L plus Black-Scholes theoretical value — with sliders for strikes, premium, IV, DTE, and spot. Use this skill whenever the user describes or shares an options position or strategy and wants to see how it makes or loses money: vertical, calendar, diagonal, or ratio spreads, butterflies, condors and iron condors, straddles, strangles, covered calls, protective or naked puts, or any multi-leg structure. This includes pasted strikes, premiums, and expiries, requests like "show me the payoff" or "draw the P&L curve", and broker screenshots (IBKR, TastyTrade, Robinhood). Use it even when details are partial — defaults fill the gaps.

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。

Options trading strategy analysis and simulation tool. Provides theoretical pricing using Black-Scholes model, Greeks calculation, strategy P/L simulation, and risk management guidance. Use when user requests options strategy analysis, covered calls, protective puts, spreads, iron condors, earnings plays, or options risk management. Includes volatility analysis, position sizing, and earnings-based strategy recommendations. Educational focus with practical trade simulation.

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。

Systematic strategic planning framework for philosophy and interdisciplinary academic papers targeting preprint platforms (PhilArchive, arXiv, PhilSci-Archive). Use when users want to: (1) plan a paper on a specific topic, (2) identify research gaps and assess originality, (3) develop optimized paper outlines, (4) prepare for preprint submission, or (5) understand platform requirements and writing standards. Triggered by phrases like 'plan a paper on,' 'help me design a paper about,' 'identify research gaps in,' 'is this idea original,' or when users need structured research planning. The skill guides through three phases: Platform Analysis (identifying target venue and studying sample papers), Theoretical Framework (AI-driven literature search and gap identification), and Outline Optimization (structured design with reviewer-perspective self-assessment). Each phase includes quality evaluation standards and validation checkpoints. Output: optimized detailed outline ready for systematic writing (use with academic-paper-composer skill).

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。

Use when building the conceptual/theoretical argument of an American Anthropologist (AA) manuscript into a four-field contribution — whether the work is ethnographic, archaeological, biological, or linguistic. AA rewards a portable concept and reflexive argument over a bare finding or thick description alone. Structures the argument; it does not run analyses or write fieldnotes.

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。

Use when deciding whether a microeconomics project fits the American Economic Journal: Microeconomics (AEJ: Micro) rather than JET, GEB, Theoretical Economics, Econometrica, or AEJ: Applied. Tests scope and broad-interest fit; it does not develop the model (see aejmic-theory-model).

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。

Use when building the theoretical engine for an Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) manuscript — mechanisms, process vs. variance logic, constructs, and boundary conditions. Builds the argument; it does not select methods or run analysis.

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。

Use when judging whether a research idea fits Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) and has the *surprising* theoretical insight ASQ demands. Sharpens the puzzle and the contribution claim; it does not design the study or write theory sections.

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。

Use when sharpening the theoretical contribution and the "so what" for an Administrative Science Quarterly (ASQ) manuscript once results exist. Frames the contribution; it does not develop the underlying theory or run analysis.

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。

Use when deciding which amr-* sub-skill to invoke next, or when sequencing a theory-building manuscript from theoretical-puzzle framing through developmental-review revision for an Academy of Management Review (AMR) submission. Routes — does not replace — the specialized skills.

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。

Use when the theoretical puzzle is the bottleneck for an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript — deciding whether an idea is theory-worthy and AMR-fit before any theorizing begins. Frames the puzzle; it does NOT build constructs (that is amr-theory-development) or design any empirical study (AMR has none).

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。

Use when you must identify which theoretical conversation an Academy of Management Review (AMR) manuscript enters and how it "challenges and extends" that conversation. Positions the argument within a literature; it does NOT summarize the field (AMR punishes review-essays) and does NOT build the new theory (that is amr-theory-development).

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。

Use when building the exhibits of an Accounting, Organizations and Society (AOS) manuscript — data-inventory and evidence tables for qualitative work, cell-means and process-test tables for experiments, and figures that carry theoretical weight — in Elsevier-compatible format. Builds exhibits; it does not run the analysis (aos-data-analysis).

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。