nature-social-science

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Nature Social Science — 社科写作与选题论证工作台

Nature Social Science — Social Science Writing and Research Topic Justification Workbench

本技能将社科硕博科研选题可落地工作流（源自《Finding a PhD Topic with Codex》一文的思想）转成一套可执行的写作与自检流程，覆盖定量、质性、民族志、档案、文件、语料和数字研究。

适用范围：社会科学及相邻人文学科。定量、质性、民族志、档案、文件、语料和数字研究都能用。判断标准始终相同：问题是否清楚，证据是否匹配，主张是否诚实，项目是否能由这名研究者完成。

不做什么：不替你生成一个"正确题目"，不保证新颖、录取、资助、发表或论文成功，不把某种方法当作高质量研究的默认答案。AI 的自信不是证据；填完的表格不是通关证明。

This skill transforms the actionable workflow for social science master's and doctoral research topic selection (derived from the ideas in the article Finding a PhD Topic with Codex) into a set of executable writing and self-check processes, covering quantitative, qualitative, ethnographic, archival, document-based, corpus, and digital research.

Scope of application: Social sciences and adjacent humanities disciplines. It applies to quantitative, qualitative, ethnographic, archival, document-based, corpus, and digital research. The evaluation criteria are always the same: Is the question clear? Does the evidence match? Are the claims honest? Can the project be completed by this researcher?

What it does not do: It will not generate a "correct topic" for you, does not guarantee novelty, admission, funding, publication, or thesis success, and does not treat any method as the default answer for high-quality research. AI confidence is not evidence; a completed form is not a pass certificate.

一、先做路由：用户在哪个环节？

1. First, Routing: Which Stage Is the User At?

用户诉求	对应要素	走哪几步	读哪些参考
"我想研究 XX"／"帮我找个论文题目"	选题构思	Step 1 → 2 → 3	`01-foundations.md` 、 `02-workflow-steps1-3.md`
"这方向有人做过吗"／文献怎么梳理／版图怎么画	文献梳理	Step 2 → 3	`02-workflow-steps1-3.md`
"我有数据/我想用方法 M"	选题构思（假起点）	先回 Step 1	`01-foundations.md` §六 Two false starts
"这个题目能不能做"／证据够不够	论证组织 + 可行性	Step 4 → 7	`03-workflow-steps4-5.md` 、 `04-workflow-steps6-8.md`
"帮我生成几个研究问题"／RQ 怎么写	选题构思	Step 5	`03-workflow-steps4-5.md`
"帮我想想审稿人会怎么攻击"／查新颖性	论证组织	Step 6	`04-workflow-steps6-8.md`
"结论是不是说过头了"／表述定级	学术表达	Step 4 的 claim ceiling + 术语纪律	`09-academic-expression.md` 、 `07-status-terminology.md`
"帮我改稿／润色论证段落"	学术表达	对照 claim ceiling 与 Red flags	`09-academic-expression.md`
"怎么跟导师谈"／开题材料怎么写	交付使用	Part III	`08-usage-handoff.md`
需要现成提示词	—	按步骤取	`05-prompt-library.md` （唯一权威版本）
需要填表模板	—	按步骤取	`06-worksheets.md`

入口判断（必做第一步）：只有兴趣 → Mode A；已有宽泛主题或关系 → Mode B；已有暂定研究问题 → Mode C（audit route，不是 advanced route）。只有数据集或方法偏好时，先问"它能帮助理解什么未决现象"，答不出来从 Mode A 开始。

User Request	Corresponding Element	Steps to Follow	References to Read
"I want to study XX" / "Help me find a thesis topic"	Topic Ideation	Step 1 → 2 → 3	`01-foundations.md` , `02-workflow-steps1-3.md`
"Has anyone done this direction before" / How to synthesize literature / How to map the field	Literature Synthesis	Step 2 → 3	`02-workflow-steps1-3.md`
"I have data / I want to use method M"	Topic Ideation (false start)	Go back to Step 1 first	`01-foundations.md` §6 Two false starts
"Can this topic be done" / Is there enough evidence	Argument Organization + Feasibility	Step 4 → 7	`03-workflow-steps4-5.md` , `04-workflow-steps6-8.md`
"Help me generate several research questions" / How to write RQs	Topic Ideation	Step 5	`03-workflow-steps4-5.md`
"Help me think about how reviewers will critique this" / Check novelty	Argument Organization	Step 6	`04-workflow-steps6-8.md`
"Is the conclusion overstated" / Statement grading	Academic Expression	Step 4's claim ceiling + terminology discipline	`09-academic-expression.md` , `07-status-terminology.md`
"Help me revise / polish argument paragraphs"	Academic Expression	对照 claim ceiling 与 Red flags	`09-academic-expression.md`
"How to talk to my advisor" / How to write opening materials	Delivery & Usage	Part III	`08-usage-handoff.md`
Need ready-made prompts	—	Take by step	`05-prompt-library.md` (only authoritative version)
Need worksheet templates	—	Take by step	`06-worksheets.md`

Entry judgment (mandatory first step): Only have an interest → Mode A; already have a broad theme or relationship → Mode B; already have a tentative research question → Mode C (audit route, not advanced route). If you only have a dataset or method preference, first ask "what unresolved phenomenon can it help understand?" If you can't answer, start with Mode A.

二、四条铁律（每条回复都要守）

2. Four Iron Rules (must be followed in every response)

不知道的地方写"未知"，不要让 AI 补猜。
主动找矛盾、零结果、反向关系和替代解释——不是找支持起点的材料。
保留证据层级、证据状态、失败搜索和关键未知，不把它们抹平成一个乐观结论。
每步结束后更新
Current Research State
，不要把整段旧对话带进下一步。

配套禁止项（写进每一次给出的提示词里）：

不要生成选题、题目或假设（在尚未到那一步时）；
不要声称存在研究空白或新颖性；
不要默认使用定量、定性、因果或任何特定方法；
不要把"本轮没找到"写成"没有研究"；
不要把个人兴趣写成已经得到证明的学术重要性；
不要编造引文、来源或结果。

Write "unknown" for things you are not sure about; do not let AI make up guesses.
Actively seek contradictions, null results, inverse relationships, and alternative explanations — not materials that support your starting point.
Retain evidence hierarchies, evidence statuses, failed searches, and key unknowns, do not smooth them into a single optimistic conclusion.
Update
Current Research State
after each step; do not carry entire old conversations into the next step.

Supporting prohibitions (to be included in every prompt provided):

Do not generate topics, titles, or hypotheses (before the appropriate step);
Do not claim the existence of research gaps or novelty;
Do not default to quantitative, qualitative, causal, or any specific method;
Do not write "no studies exist" when "not found in this round" is the case;
Do not present personal interest as proven academic significance;
Do not fabricate citations, sources, or results.

三、十二个判断（写作自检红线）

3. Twelve Judgments (Red Lines for Writing Self-Check)

任何一次关于选题或论证的判断，先过这张表。完整版见

01-foundations.md

§四。

不要混为一谈	可操作的检查
Interest ≠ Topic	是否已经划出要探索的现象、过程和边界？
Topic ≠ Research problem	是否指出领域中具体哪里解释不通？
Research problem ≠ Research question	是否把知识困难变成可由证据推进的任务？
Research gap ≠ "few studies"	研究少造成了什么知识后果？
Novelty ≠ nobody has studied it	是否解决矛盾、机制、测量或新近可回答的问题？
Interesting ≠ Important	除了个人兴趣，答案会改变谁对什么的理解？
Important ≠ Answerable	是否有合适、合规且时间匹配的证据？
Available source ≠ Valid evidence	字段、文本或观察真的对应目标概念吗？
Correlation ≠ Mechanism	是否看见过程，还是只看见现象同时出现？
Advanced method ≠ Strong contribution	方法是否解决了原来的知识困难？
Feasible study ≠ PhD-worthy project	它能否支撑一个核心谜题与连贯发展？
AI judgement ≠ Researcher judgement	哪些决定需要用户的价值、经验和导师判断？

Any judgment about topic selection or argumentation must first pass through this table. The full version is in §4 of

01-foundations.md

Do Not Confuse	Actionable Check
Interest ≠ Topic	Have you defined the phenomena, processes, and boundaries to be explored?
Topic ≠ Research problem	Have you identified specifically where explanations fall short in the field?
Research problem ≠ Research question	Have you turned the knowledge difficulty into a task that can be advanced by evidence?
Research gap ≠ "few studies"	What knowledge consequences result from the scarcity of studies?
Novelty ≠ nobody has studied it	Does it resolve contradictions, mechanisms, measurement issues, or newly answerable questions?
Interesting ≠ Important	Beyond personal interest, whose understanding of what will the answer change?
Important ≠ Answerable	Is there appropriate, compliant, and time-matched evidence?
Available source ≠ Valid evidence	Do the fields, texts, or observations truly correspond to the target concepts?
Correlation ≠ Mechanism	Have you observed the process, or only seen phenomena occurring simultaneously?
Advanced method ≠ Strong contribution	Does the method solve the original knowledge difficulty?
Feasible study ≠ PhD-worthy project	Can it support a core puzzle and coherent development?
AI judgement ≠ Researcher judgement	Which decisions require the user's values, experience, and advisor's judgment?

四、八步工作流一页速览

4. Eight-Step Workflow One-Page Overview

Step	主产物	决策问题	Gate
1. Research Search Space	一页搜索空间	概念与边界是否足以搜索？	PASS / REVISE / STOP
2. Research Landscape	领域版图	是否看见多种问题、解释和反证？	同上
3. Unresolved Problems	3–7 个问题卡	是否存在有后果的知识不确定性？	同上
4. Evidence Map	1–3 条证据路线	是否能观察核心问题并守住主张上限？	同上
5. Candidate RQs	6–12 张候选卡	是否有实质不同、可被攻击的问句？	同上（起用 PARK）
6. Academic Survival	Novelty Audit + Reviewer 2	候选是否经学术攻击仍存活？	同上
7. PhD Feasibility	可行性档案	是否没有未处理硬失败，且能发展成博士？	同上
8. Final Shortlist	最多三张 Topic Cards	能否清楚说明取舍和下一项核实？	同上

Step 5 会短暂扩展候选、随后收窄，这不是纯线性管道。

回退规则：若设计只能提供弱代理、错误单位或不合适时间 → 返回 Question；若连问题的知识后果也消失 → 返回 Problem。

Step	Main Output	Decision Question	Gate
1. Research Search Space	One-page search space	Are concepts and boundaries sufficient for searching?	PASS / REVISE / STOP
2. Research Landscape	Field landscape	Can you see multiple questions, explanations, and counterevidence?	Same as above
3. Unresolved Problems	3–7 problem cards	Is there consequential knowledge uncertainty?	Same as above
4. Evidence Map	1–3 evidence pathways	Can you observe the core question and maintain the claim ceiling?	Same as above
5. Candidate RQs	6–12 candidate cards	Are there substantially different, critique-able questions?	Same as above (PARK enabled)
6. Academic Survival	Novelty Audit + Reviewer 2	Do candidates survive academic critique?	Same as above
7. PhD Feasibility	Feasibility dossier	Are there no unaddressed hard failures, and can it develop into a PhD project?	Same as above
8. Final Shortlist	Up to three Topic Cards	Can you clearly explain trade-offs and the next verification step?	Same as above

Step 5 briefly expands candidates and then narrows them down; this is not a purely linear pipeline.

Rollback rules: If the design can only provide weak proxies, wrong units, or inappropriate timing → return to Question; if even the knowledge consequences of the question disappear → return to Problem.

五、五套状态系统（不要合成一个分数）

5. Five Status Systems (Do Not Combine Into a Single Score)

在问什么	用哪套	取值
我能进入下一步吗？	Workflow Gate	PASS / REVISE / STOP（+ PARK）
这条证据路线核实到哪了？	Evidence State	NAMED / DOCUMENTED / ACCESS-CONFIRMED / TESTED
这条候选经学术攻击后怎样？	Academic Survival	SURVIVE / REDESIGN / PARK / REJECT
这项硬条件现在什么状态？	PhD Feasibility Dependency	CONFIRMED / RESOLVABLE DEPENDENCY / UNKNOWN / FAIL
这条候选能进最终比较吗？	PhD Feasibility Disposition	PROCEED TO COMPARISON / REDESIGN / PARK / REJECT

六条不许抹平的不等式：

```
UNKNOWN ≠ PASS
```
— 未知需要核实动作，不是乐观解释。
```
DOCUMENTED ≠ ACCESS-CONFIRMED
```
— 官方文件说来源存在，不等于用户已满足资格、许可、地点、费用和伦理条件。
```
SURVIVE ≠ novel
```
— 通过一次有界攻击，不等于证明全世界没有近似研究。
```
PARK ≠ bad idea
```
— 缺的是决定性证据或条件，不是想法本身。
```
PASS ≠ permanent approval
```
— 新文献、访问变化、伦理意见、实测结果都可能把它变成 REVISE 或 STOP。
```
REJECT ≠ wasted work
```
— 拒绝记录保存了最近似工作、失败条件和边界，能阻止以后重复同一错误。

不要创建"综合状态"。 一条候选完全可以同时是： Step 6 SURVIVE、证据 DOCUMENTED、访问依赖 UNKNOWN、Step 7 处置 PARK、本步 Gate REVISE。这些标签并不矛盾，它们回答不同问题。详见

07-status-terminology.md

。

What Is Being Asked	Which System to Use	Possible Values
Can I proceed to the next step?	Workflow Gate	PASS / REVISE / STOP (+ PARK)
How far has this evidence pathway been verified?	Evidence State	NAMED / DOCUMENTED / ACCESS-CONFIRMED / TESTED
How does this candidate fare after academic critique?	Academic Survival	SURVIVE / REDESIGN / PARK / REJECT
What is the current status of this hard requirement?	PhD Feasibility Dependency	CONFIRMED / RESOLVABLE DEPENDENCY / UNKNOWN / FAIL
Can this candidate enter the final comparison?	PhD Feasibility Disposition	PROCEED TO COMPARISON / REDESIGN / PARK / REJECT

Six Inequalities That Must Not Be Smoothed Over:

```
UNKNOWN ≠ PASS
```
— Unknown requires verification actions, not optimistic interpretation.
```
DOCUMENTED ≠ ACCESS-CONFIRMED
```
— Official documents stating a source exists do not mean the user has met eligibility, licensing, location, cost, and ethical conditions.
```
SURVIVE ≠ novel
```
— Passing a bounded critique does not prove that no similar research exists anywhere in the world.
```
PARK ≠ bad idea
```
— What is missing is decisive evidence or conditions, not the idea itself.
```
PASS ≠ permanent approval
```
— New literature, access changes, ethical opinions, and empirical results may all turn it into REVISE or STOP.
```
REJECT ≠ wasted work
```
— Rejection records preserve the closest existing work, failure conditions, and boundaries, preventing the same mistakes from being repeated later.

Do not create a "composite status". A candidate can perfectly well be: Step 6 SURVIVE, evidence DOCUMENTED, access dependency UNKNOWN, Step 7 disposition PARK, and current step Gate REVISE. These labels are not contradictory; they answer different questions. See

07-status-terminology.md

for details.

六、工作节奏（每一步重复这五拍）

6. Work Rhythm (Repeat These Five Beats for Each Step)

读当前章节，确认本步的目的和 Gate；
在
```
05-prompt-library.md
```
找到对应 prompt，只准备
```
Required input
```
；
把输出写进
```
06-worksheets.md
```
里的对应表格，不把长对话当作最终记录；
用质量检查和 Red flags 审阅结果；需要真人判断时停下；
更新
```
Current Research State
```
，再按
```
08-usage-handoff.md
```
进入下一步或暂时退出。

上下文控制：每次转段只带

Carry forward

的内容，主动丢弃

Leave behind

。

08-usage-handoff.md

给出了九次交接各自该带什么、丢什么、哪项判断必须由用户作出、以及哪类未知会阻塞推进。

Read the current chapter and confirm the purpose and Gate of this step;
Find the corresponding prompt in
```
05-prompt-library.md
```
and prepare only the
```
Required input
```
;
Write the output into the corresponding table in
```
06-worksheets.md
```
, do not treat long conversations as final records;
Review results using quality checks and Red flags; stop when human judgment is required;
Update
```
Current Research State
```
, then proceed to the next step or exit temporarily according to
```
08-usage-handoff.md
```
.

Context control: Only carry

Carry forward

content when moving to each new segment, and actively discard

Leave behind

content.

08-usage-handoff.md

specifies what to bring, what to discard, which judgments must be made by the user, and what types of unknowns will block progress for each of the nine handoffs.

七、什么时候必须停下来找真人

7. When You Must Stop and Find a Human

当你无法判断争论在本学科中的分量、关键全文或资料说明无法取得、研究涉及敏感参与者或高风险材料、方法学习成本不清楚，或项目依赖某位导师、机构与资料提供者时——把当前卡片交给合适的人。

AI 可以帮你准备问题，不能替他们授权。

需要交给真人的典型场景与方法，见

08-usage-handoff.md

与

01-foundations.md

§五「什么时候找真人」。

When you cannot judge the weight of a debate in your discipline, cannot obtain key full texts or data documentation, the research involves sensitive participants or high-risk materials, method learning cost is unclear, or the project depends on a specific advisor, institution, or data provider — hand the current cards to the appropriate person.

AI can help you prepare questions, but cannot authorize on their behalf.

For typical scenarios and methods that require handing off to a human, see

08-usage-handoff.md

and §5 "When to Find a Human" in

01-foundations.md

八、使用约定

8. Usage Agreements

提示词里的称谓：
```
05-prompt-library.md
```
中的提示词为逐字保留原件，正文里自称"我正在使用 Codex"。直接复制即可；若在别的 agent 里使用，可把
```
Codex
```
替换为当前助手的名字，其余一字不改。
提示词的唯一权威版本是
05-prompt-library.md
。各步骤文件里的"短预览"只作说明，不要另造一版并行维护。
Quick / Deep 分层：Step 2、4、6、7 提供 Quick Run 与 Deep Run 两档。 Quick Run 减少首轮工作量，不降低证据、伦理、访问或 hard-failure 标准。
不要把长对话当记录：所有结论必须落进
```
06-worksheets.md
```
的对应表格与
```
Current Research State
```
。
不确定的一律写"未知"，不要接受任何一方（包括你自己）的乐观补全。

Addressing in prompts: The prompts in
```
05-prompt-library.md
```
are preserved verbatim from the original, and refer to themselves in the text as "I am using Codex". Just copy them directly; if using in another agent, you can replace
```
Codex
```
with the name of the current assistant, and leave everything else unchanged.
The only authoritative version of the prompts is
05-prompt-library.md
. The "short previews" in each step file are for illustration only; do not create a separate version for parallel maintenance.
Quick / Deep tiers: Steps 2, 4, 6, and 7 offer Quick Run and Deep Run tiers. Quick Run reduces first-round workload, but does not lower evidence, ethics, access, or hard-failure standards.
Do not treat long conversations as records: All conclusions must be entered into the corresponding tables in
```
06-worksheets.md
```
and
```
Current Research State
```
.
Write "unknown" for anything uncertain, and do not accept optimistic completions from any party (including yourself).

九、参考文件索引

9. Reference File Index

以下九个文件均位于本 skill 的

references/

目录下，按需只读当前步骤需要的那个。

文件	内容
`01-foundations.md`	核心概念、六个易混概念、十二个判断、能力边界、证据层级、三种入口模式、Gate 定义、Funnel
`02-workflow-steps1-3.md`	Step 1 搜索空间 / Step 2 领域版图（文献梳理核心）/ Step 3 未决问题
`03-workflow-steps4-5.md`	Step 4 证据地图与 claim ceiling / Step 5 候选研究问题
`04-workflow-steps6-8.md`	Step 6 学术攻击（Novelty Audit + Reviewer 2）/ Step 7 可行性 / Step 8 最终短名单
`05-prompt-library.md`	全部可复制提示词（唯一权威版本）
`06-worksheets.md`	11 份工作表模板
`07-status-terminology.md`	五套状态系统 + 术语小词典 + Current Research State
`08-usage-handoff.md`	短名单使用、导师沟通、九次交接、恢复规则
`09-academic-expression.md`	学术表达纪律：主张上限、动词与证据相称、诚实措辞句式表、各步 Red flags（起草与改稿时必读）

使用时只做四件事：不知道的写"未知"；要求找反证；保留证据层级与失败记录；每步更新状态表。

The following nine files are all located in the

references/

directory of this skill. Read only the one needed for the current step as required.

File	Content
`01-foundations.md`	Core concepts, six easily confused concepts, twelve judgments, capability boundaries, evidence hierarchy, three entry modes, Gate definitions, Funnel
`02-workflow-steps1-3.md`	Step 1 Search Space / Step 2 Field Landscape (core of literature synthesis) / Step 3 Unresolved Problems
`03-workflow-steps4-5.md`	Step 4 Evidence Map and claim ceiling / Step 5 Candidate Research Questions
`04-workflow-steps6-8.md`	Step 6 Academic Critique (Novelty Audit + Reviewer 2) / Step 7 Feasibility / Step 8 Final Shortlist
`05-prompt-library.md`	All copyable prompts (only authoritative version)
`06-worksheets.md`	11 worksheet templates
`07-status-terminology.md`	Five status systems + terminology glossary + Current Research State
`08-usage-handoff.md`	Shortlist usage, advisor communication, nine handoffs, recovery rules
`09-academic-expression.md`	Academic expression discipline: claim ceiling, verb-evidence alignment, honest phrasing sentence pattern table, step-by-step Red flags (required reading for drafting and revising)

Only do four things when using: Write "unknown" when you don't know; require searching for counterevidence; retain evidence hierarchies and failure records; update the status table at each step.