原文核对：2026-10-13 · 中文正文 · 英文提示词与演示
场景定位
综合论文、笔记、方法、旧提案、资助指南和目标，形成研究概览，保留分歧、局限与论断审阅标记。
- 难度
- 高级
- 时间跨度
- 长时间运行
适合用于
- 准备文献综述或基金概念的教师。
- 证据分散在论文、笔记和旧提案中的研究。
- 需可追溯来源和明确局限的论断草稿。
相关工具
收集获准论文集、笔记、方法和提案。
生成带来源和论断标记的结构化简报。
起步提示词
英文原文 · 可复制后按实际材料修改
Synthesize the papers, research notes, methods documents, prior proposals, funding guidance, grant aims, and citation requirements I provide.
Organize the evidence by:
- theme
- disagreement
- methods limitation
- relevance to each research or grant aim
- open question
Create a research landscape or grant evidence brief with source links and claims that require faculty verification. Do not invent citations or overstate the evidence.定义证据集
收集论文、笔记、方法、旧提案节选、资助指南、目标草稿和引用要求，标明权威与背景材料。
综合前盘点，先解决缺失、重复和不可访问引用。
建立可追溯简报
应包含：
- 主题与共识。
- 有意义的分歧。
- 方法和证据局限。
- 各研究或资助目标对应证据。
- 开放问题与缺失支持。
- 每项实质论断的来源链接。
分开源研究发现、解释和提案措辞。
审阅论断与引用
逐项对照原文，引用或转述保留范围、人群、方法和不确定性。
补强薄弱章节、比较竞争证据或建论断—来源矩阵；教师仍负责解释、引用准确性和最终提案主张。
展开英文原文对照
Use ChatGPT to synthesize papers, research notes, methods documents, prior proposals, funding guidance, and grant aims into a research landscape with themes, disagreements, limitations, and claim-review flags.
Define the evidence corpus
Collect the approved papers, notes, methods documents, prior proposal excerpts, funder guidance, draft aims, and citation requirements. Record which sources are authoritative and which are background only.
Ask ChatGPT to inventory the corpus before synthesizing it. Resolve missing files, duplicates, and inaccessible references early.
Build a traceable evidence brief
The starter prompt should produce:
- Themes and areas of agreement.
- Meaningful disagreements.
- Methods and evidence limitations.
- Evidence mapped to each research or grant aim.
- Open questions and missing support.
- Source links for every substantive claim.
Keep source findings separate from interpretation and proposal language.
Review claims and citations
Verify each citation against the original source. Check that quoted or paraphrased findings preserve scope, population, method, and uncertainty.
Use follow-up prompts to strengthen weakly supported sections, compare competing evidence, or create a claim-to-source matrix. Faculty remain responsible for interpretation, citation accuracy, and final proposal claims.