学生论文辅助

# 论文大纲（结构）

题目（暂定）：研究问题的结构化拆解方法在社会科学论文指导中的应用——问题树与因果链的有效性评估

字数目标：约3000字（±10%）

关键词：问题树；因果链；逻辑框架；学术写作指导；章节大纲；引用错误；Chicago作者-日期

1. 摘要（200–250字）
- 交代研究背景与目的：学生论文常见结构混乱与引用错误的问题；引入“问题树+因果链”作为写作指导干预。
- 方法概要：设计（如班级层面随机/准实验）、样本、指标（大纲清晰度评分、格式与引用错误计数）、分析方法（ANCOVA/DiD、效应量）。
- 主要贡献：把逻辑框架工具迁移至写作指导；提出可复用的评价量表与流程。
- 注意：不报告具体结果，保持方法与预期贡献的概述性。

2. 引言（400–500字）
- 背景与动机：社会科学写作的两类共性难点——章节逻辑不清、格式与引用错误高发；指导实践中常缺少可操作的工具化流程。
- 研究问题与假设：
  - RQ：问题树与因果链方法能否帮助学生形成清晰章节大纲并减少格式与引用错误？
  - H1：接受“问题树+因果链”指导的学生，其章节大纲清晰度评分高于对照组。
  - H2：接受该指导的学生，其格式与Chicago作者-日期引用错误数量显著减少。
  - 机制假设：通过降低认知负荷、显化因果与论证路径，实现“研究问题→理论→方法→证据→结论”的对齐。
- 研究贡献与结构安排：概述论文后续章节。

3. 文献综述与理论框架（600–700字）
- 写作指导与结构脚手架文献：结构化工具对学术写作质量的已知影响与不足。
- 问题树、因果链与逻辑框架（逻辑模型、LFA、DAG/因果图）在项目管理与因果推断中的角色及其可迁移性。
- 认知负荷与外化表征：为什么结构化拆解可提升大纲质量与规范性执行。
- 提出概念模型：
  - 输入：工具训练（问题树+因果链）。
  - 过程：问题分解→因果梳理→章节映射→引用需求清单化。
  - 输出：大纲清晰度↑；格式与引用错误↓；自我效能与可迁移能力↑。
- 图示计划：概念框架图（Figure 1）。

4. 研究设计与方法（700–800字）
- 情境与样本：课程或写作工作坊；样本构成与纳入标准；伦理审批与知情同意。
- 干预与对照：
  - 干预组：两次2小时工作坊+模板包（问题树画布、因果链模板、Chicago速查卡、引用管理器教程）+一次小组反馈会。
  - 对照组：常规写作指导（同等时长，不提供结构化工具）。
- 测量指标与工具：
  - 主要结果1：章节大纲清晰度评分（Rubric维度：问题拆解完整性、研究逻辑连贯度、章节—证据对齐、可执行性；1–5分Likert，双评审，计算ICC/Cohen’s κ）。
  - 主要结果2：格式与引用错误计数（单位：每份草稿；类别：文内引用、参考文献表、文献与正文不一致、标点与大小写、DOI/URL、页码/年份、et al.使用、非拉丁文献转写）。
  - 次要结果：学生自评负荷与自我效能、提交效率、版本迭代次数。
- 数据收集与程序：
  - 前测：提交初稿大纲与参考文献草表；基础信息（GPA、写作经验、工具熟练度）。
  - 干预实施：盲化评分者；统一评分说明书与练习集合。
  - 后测：提交修订大纲与参考文献；记录学习投入时间。
- 分析策略：
  - 主效应：ANCOVA（后测为因变量，前测为协变量）、或差异中之差（DiD）。
  - 稳健性：非参数检验；删去极值后重估；共变项控制（年级、学科）。
  - 效应量：Cohen’s d；同时报告置信区间。
  - 信度：双评审一致性（κ或ICC），阈值与解释。
  - 异质性：基于初始写作水平、学科、语言背景的交互项。
- 复现与开放：预注册（如OSF）、材料与代码开放、匿名数据字典。

5. 结果呈现计划（300–400字）
- 表1：样本特征与基线平衡。
- 表2：Rubric维度定义与评分说明（附录给出完整Rubric）。
- 表3：主要结果（大纲清晰度、错误计数）的基准与稳健回归。
- 图2：大纲清晰度得分分布与组间差异可视化。
- 图3：错误类型构成比例变化（堆叠条形或桑基图）。
- 表4：异质性与敏感性分析。
- 文本报告将遵循“估计值+不确定性+解释”的规范。

6. 讨论（500–600字）
- 机制讨论：结构化外化如何降低认知负荷并提升“问题—方法—证据”对齐；问题树与因果链在写作情境的互补性。
- 内外部效度与威胁：选择偏差、评分者期望、教学者效应、霍桑效应；应对策略与残余风险。
- 实践启示：在常规指导中嵌入“问题树→因果链→章节映射→引用清单”的四步流程；可扩展到研究设计课与方法课。
- 局限与未来研究：长期效果、不同学科迁移、在线与线下差异、自动化工具辅助（如引用与大纲校验）。

7. 结论与建议（200–300字）
- 对研究问题的回应（方法层面总结，不预断结果）。
- 对教学实施者的建议：最小可行工具包、培训与评估要点。
- 对学生的建议：将工具用于选题、文献综述、方法设计与草稿迭代的各阶段。

8. 参考文献体例与附录说明（150–200字）
- 说明Chicago作者-日期体例采用原则与格式要点。
- 附录清单：Rubric全文、培训材料、问卷、评分说明书、常见错误检查表。


# 论点与证据清单（结构化）

核心论点A：问题树与因果链可显著提升章节大纲清晰度
- 理由/机制：
  - 把复杂研究问题分解为可写作的子问题与因果路径，减少跳跃与冗余。
  - 使“研究问题—理论—假设—方法—证据—结论”一一对应。
- 证据设计：
  - 指标：Rubric总分与维度分。
  - 数据：前后测评分、双评审一致性（κ/ICC>0.70为可接受）。
  - 分析：ANCOVA/DiD，报告效应量与置信区间。

核心论点B：该方法可减少格式与引用错误
- 理由/机制：
  - 在因果链末端生成“证据与引用需求清单”，提前规范引用元数据与体例。
  - 工具包与速查卡降低检索与格式化的执行负荷。
- 证据设计：
  - 指标：每份草稿的错误计数与类型分布。
  - 数据：独立核对的错误记录表，前后测对比。
  - 分析：负二项/泊松回归；类别构成的卡方检验。

核心论点C：工具化流程具备可扩展与可复用性
- 理由/机制：
  - 低成本、可模板化、与现有课程兼容。
- 证据设计：
  - 指标：学生与教师满意度、实施时间成本、重复使用意愿。
  - 数据：问卷与访谈质性编码；过程日志。
  - 分析：描述统计+主题分析，作为量化结果的补充。

反驳与替代解释控制
- 可能的替代解释：教师个体差异、时间投入差异、学生初始能力。
- 证据与方法：教师固定效应或分层模型；控制前测与投入时间；分层异质性分析。


# 写作与规范建议（建议）

一、章节写作建议
- 引言：用三步法——情境/缺口/贡献；明确H1/H2与机制图示的预告。
- 文献综述：以问题为纲，不以作者为纲；围绕“结构化工具—认知负荷—写作质量—规范执行”四条线索组织。
- 方法：把“谁/何时/何地/如何做/如何测/如何估计/如何保证信度与伦理”写成可复现的清单式叙述；提供Rubric与评分者训练流程。
- 结果：先报告估计与不确定性，再解释意义；图表做到“标题即结论，图注含样本与度量单位”。
- 讨论：对照机制、阐明边界条件；明确局限与未来研究。
- 结论：避免新信息；压缩为可执行建议。

二、Chicago作者-日期体例要点
- 文内引用：
  - 单一作者：（Booth 2016, 45）或（Booth, Colomb, and Williams 2016）
  - 两位以上作者：首引列全体，后续可用“等”（中文正文可写“等”但参考表需保留全部作者；英文文献用et al.）
  - 同一处多文献：按年份或作者字母序用分号分隔，如（Pearl 2009; Shadish, Cook, and Campbell 2002）
  - 直接引语：需页码；转引尽量避免。
- 参考文献表：
  - 按作者姓氏字母序；悬挂缩进0.5英寸；标题句式大小写按英文规范；中文文献可保留原题名。
  - 常见类型示例：
    - 书籍：Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams. 2016. The Craft of Research. 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    - 期刊文章：Cohen, Jacob. 1960. A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20 (1): 37–46.
    - 章节/报告/网络资源需注明版本、出版社/机构、URL与访问日期（如适用）。
- 细节与一致性：
  - 年份与作者一致；连字符与长破折号用法区分（页码范围用短横线）。
  - DOI优先；URL需可访问；非英文作者姓名与转写遵从来源。

三、图表与附录建议
- 图表编号与自足性：标题完整传达信息，图注包含数据来源、样本量、度量单位、模型设定要点。
- 附录：Rubric全文、问卷与访谈提纲、评分者手册、检查表、干预材料样例；在正文中清晰引用。

四、方法与统计建议
- 预注册主要假设、指标与分析代码骨架，减少选择性报告。
- 信度优先：评分前的口径对齐与试评；报告κ或ICC与95%置信区间。
- 效应解释：同时报告统计显著性与实际意义（如错误减少的绝对数量、每千字错误率）。

五、语言与呈现
- 采用学术中文，术语稳定；避免口语化与主观形容词。
- 段落结构：主题句在前；一段一事；过渡语信号化（因此/此外/然而）。
- 版式：统一字体、行距、编号体系；首次出现的缩写需给出全称。

六、研究伦理与数据管理
- 明确匿名与自愿原则；评分者盲化；敏感信息脱敏。
- 数据与材料在公开仓储（如OSF）挂载，注明许可与引用方式。


# 图表与材料清单（提交物建议）

- Figure 1 概念框架与机制图（问题树→因果链→章节映射→规范执行）
- Figure 2 大纲清晰度分布与组间比较
- Figure 3 引用错误类型构成变化
- Table 1 样本特征与基线平衡
- Table 2 大纲清晰度Rubric（维度、操作化定义、评分锚点）
- Table 3 主回归结果与稳健性检验
- Table 4 异质性与敏感性分析
- 附录A 评分者训练与一致性报告
- 附录B 工作坊讲义与模板（问题树画布、因果链模板、Chicago速查卡）
- 附录C 错误核对表与判定规则
- 附录D 问卷与访谈提纲


# 附：常见错误检查表（用于撰写与终稿核对）

一、结构与论证
- 研究问题与假设未显式呈现或与方法不对齐
- 章节层级紊乱，标题不反映逻辑功能（现象/理论/方法/结果/讨论混写）
- 概念未下定义，变量操作化不清
- 贡献与已有文献缺乏对话或定位过度

二、方法与数据
- 干预与对照描述不充分；实施流程不可复现
- 指标定义含糊；Rubric缺少评分锚点
- 未报告评分者一致性或效度证据
- 统计方法与数据分布不匹配；未报告效应量与不确定性

三、图表
- 标题不自足；图注缺样本量与单位
- 轴标签与刻度不清；颜色编码不具可访问性
- 表格未标明模型设定与控制变量

四、Chicago作者-日期体例
- 文内作者-年份与参考表不一致
- 直接引语缺页码；多文献分隔符误用
- 参考表排序错误；作者名缩写不规范
- 书名/期刊名大小写与斜体错误；页码范围短横线缺失
- DOI/URL缺失或不可访问；非英文文献转写与年份不一致

五、语言与格式
- 术语混用；缩写未定义
- 段落过长或多点混装；缺过渡语
- 标点与空格不规范；中英文混排未处理（数字、单位、符号）

六、伦理与复现
- 缺伦理说明与知情同意
- 未提供材料/代码/数据字典；文件命名与版本不可追踪


# 可选参考文献（示例，作者-日期体例）

- Becker, Howard S. 2007. Writing for Social Scientists: How to Start and Finish Your Thesis, Book, or Article. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Booth, Wayne C., Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams. 2016. The Craft of Research. 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Brookhart, Susan M. 2013. How to Create and Use Rubrics for Formative Assessment and Grading. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
- The Chicago Manual of Style. 2017. 17th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Cohen, Jacob. 1960. A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20 (1): 37–46.
- Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- European Commission. 2004. Aid Delivery Methods. Volume 1: Project Cycle Management Guidelines. Brussels: European Commission.
- Graff, Gerald, and Cathy Birkenstein. 2018. “They Say / I Say”: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing. 4th ed. New York: W. W. Norton.
- Krippendorff, Klaus. 2018. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
- Pearl, Judea. 2009. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Pearl, Judea, Madelyn Glymour, and Nicholas P. Jewell. 2016. Causal Inference in Statistics: A Primer. Chichester: Wiley.
- Shadish, William R., Thomas D. Cook, and Donald T. Campbell. 2002. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
- Sweller, John. 1988. Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning. Cognitive Science 12 (2): 257–285.
- W. K. Kellogg Foundation. 2004. Logic Model Development Guide. Battle Creek, MI: W. K. Kellogg Foundation.
- Kirkpatrick, Donald L., and James D. Kirkpatrick. 2006. Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
- Tufte, Edward R. 2001. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. 2nd ed. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

说明：以上为可选与相关文献示例，建议根据实际写作进展增补最新期刊文献与本土语境研究。


# 字数与进度建议（建议）

- 第1周：确定样本与材料、预注册；完成引言与方法初稿（约1300字）
- 第2周：完善文献综述与理论框架（约900字）；完成Rubric与评分者训练
- 第3周：实施干预与收集前后测；起草结果呈现框架与图表模板
- 第4周：撰写讨论与结论（约800字）；整理参考文献与附录；执行“常见错误检查表”全项核对

以上结构与建议旨在帮助你围绕既定研究问题，形成可执行、可评估且符合Chicago作者-日期体例的学术论文提纲，并附带论点-证据对齐与常见错误的预防性清单。若需，我可根据你的课程情境与数据条件，提供Rubric样例与评分者手册模板。

# 论文大纲（English manuscript; ~2,500 words; APA 7）

Title (concise; include keywords)
- Example: Standardizing Terminology to Improve Readability in Climate Risk Communication: Effects on Non-native Graduate Students’ Comprehension and Retrieval Efficiency

Abstract (150–200 words; one paragraph; 6–8 sentences)
- Purpose: State the problem, gap, and aim.
- Methods: Briefly note corpus, participants, tasks, and measures.
- Results: High-level patterns only (no numbers in abstract).
- Implications: Theoretical and practical contributions.
- Keywords: risk communication; readability; terminology

1. Introduction (300–350 words; 3 paragraphs)
- P1—Context and problem:
  - Climate risk communication’s societal importance.
  - Cross-disciplinary audiences and language complexity.
  - Gap: Limited evidence on how disciplinary terminology affects L2 graduate readers’ comprehension and information retrieval.
- P2—Aim and contributions:
  - Aim: Examine effects of disciplinary terminology and standardization on comprehension and retrieval efficiency.
  - Contributions: Conceptual integration (terminology–readability–task performance); methodological (mixed methods with controlled terminology); practical (guidelines for standardization).
- P3—Definitions and scope:
  - Define at first occurrence: risk communication; terminology; readability; standardization; non-native graduate students; retrieval efficiency.
  - Scope: English-language texts; graduate-level L2 readers; climate-related domains.

2. Literature Review (500–600 words; 4–5 paragraphs)
- P1—Risk communication and cross-disciplinary language:
  - Distinct terminology across climate science, economics, public health, policy.
  - Challenges for mixed audiences.
- P2—Terminology, polysemy, and standardization:
  - Terms differ by field; synonymy and polysemy increase cognitive load.
  - Existing glossaries and ISO/terminology standards as reference points.
- P3—Readability and L2 comprehension:
  - Readability indices (e.g., Flesch-Kincaid) and their limits for L2 readers.
  - Lexical sophistication, frequency bands, and sentence length as predictors.
- P4—Information retrieval and user performance:
  - How terminology affects searching, query formation, and task success.
- P5—Gap synthesis:
  - Few studies link terminology features, readability, and retrieval for L2 graduates in climate risk contexts.

3. Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses (300–350 words; 3 paragraphs; include a figure)
- P1—Framework:
  - Terminology features (disciplinary origin, density, polysemy, definition clarity) influence readability.
  - Readability mediates effects on comprehension and retrieval efficiency.
- P2—Moderators:
  - Language proficiency, domain familiarity, and presence of standardized glossary.
- P3—Hypotheses (state succinctly):
  - H1: Higher discipline-specific terminology density reduces comprehension accuracy for L2 readers.
  - H2: Standardized definitions at first occurrence improve comprehension and reduce reading time.
  - H3: Readability mediates the relationship between terminology features and task performance.
  - H4: Effects on retrieval efficiency are stronger when tasks require cross-document searching.

4. Methods (700–800 words; 6–7 paragraphs)
- P1—Design:
  - Mixed-methods: corpus-based text analysis + controlled experiment.
  - Between-subjects or within-subjects counterbalanced conditions: disciplinary term variants vs standardized version.
- P2—Materials (texts):
  - Sources: reports and briefings from climate science, economics, public health, policy.
  - Text sets (~600–800 words each); comparable topic and structure.
  - Versions: original terminology; standardized terminology with in-text definitions; glossary-only support condition.
- P3—Terminology identification and manipulation:
  - Annotation: termhood, discipline label, polysemy, synonym clusters.
  - Inter-annotator agreement (e.g., Cohen’s kappa).
  - Standardization protocol: prefer terms aligned with authoritative glossaries; define at first occurrence; maintain consistent labels.
- P4—Participants:
  - Non-native English graduate students (target N = 40–60; justify with power analysis).
  - Collect language proficiency and domain familiarity.
  - Ethics: consent, anonymity, IRB/ethics approval.
- P5—Tasks and measures:
  - Comprehension: multiple-choice and short-answer items; accuracy; confidence ratings.
  - Reading time: per text and per item.
  - Retrieval efficiency: timed search task across a small, indexed set; metrics: time-to-locate, query count, click depth, success rate.
  - Cognitive load: brief NASA-TLX or similar scale.
- P6—Readability and lexical measures:
  - Sentence length, Flesch-Kincaid Grade, Gunning Fog (report with caution for L2).
  - Lexical frequency bands (e.g., general/academic/highly technical); type–token ratio; word concreteness.
  - Cohesion metrics (connectives, referential ties) if available.
- P7—Analysis plan:
  - Descriptives; reliability checks.
  - Mixed-effects models (random intercepts for participant and text).
  - Mediation (readability as mediator).
  - Moderation (proficiency, familiarity).
  - Report effect sizes, 95% CIs; multiple-comparison control (e.g., Holm).

5. Results (300–350 words; 3 paragraphs; use tables/figures)
- P1—Manipulation checks:
  - Differences in terminology density/readability across conditions.
- P2—Primary outcomes:
  - Comprehension accuracy and reading time across conditions; mediation by readability.
- P3—Retrieval outcomes:
  - Time-to-locate, success rate, and query behavior; moderator effects (proficiency/familiarity).

6. Discussion (350–400 words; 3–4 paragraphs)
- P1—Summary of key findings:
  - Link findings to hypotheses and framework.
- P2—Theoretical implications:
  - How terminology standardization intersects with readability theory and L2 processing.
- P3—Practical implications:
  - Guidance for climate communicators and interdisciplinary teams; standardization and definition practices.
- P4—Limitations and future work:
  - Sample characteristics, task ecology, metric limitations; suggest replication and multilingual extensions.

7. Conclusion (120–150 words; 1 paragraph)
- Concise restatement of contribution and implications for risk communication, readability, and terminology use.

References (APA 7; new page)
- Cite authoritative sources (e.g., IPCC glossaries, WHO/UNDRR guidance on risk communication, ISO terminology standards, plain language guidelines, L2 readability research, mixed-effects modeling references).
- Ensure in-text citations match references.

Appendices (as needed)
- A: Term annotation guide and codebook.
- B: Sample text excerpts (original vs standardized).
- C: Comprehension items and scoring rubric.
- D: Retrieval task instructions and interface screenshots.
- E: Pre-registration link; analysis scripts and data availability statement.

Proposed tables and figures
- Figure 1: Conceptual model (terminology → readability → performance; moderators).
- Table 1: Corpus and text characteristics (by condition).
- Table 2: Terminology metrics and readability metrics.
- Table 3: Mixed-effects model summaries (fixed effects only; detailed stats in supplement).


# 段落与句子结构建议（避免长句）
- Overall sentence length target: 15–20 words on average; avoid >30 words.
- Paragraphs: 4–6 sentences each; one main idea per paragraph.
- Section-level paragraph counts:
  - Introduction: 3 paragraphs
  - Literature Review: 4–5 paragraphs
  - Framework/Hypotheses: 3 paragraphs
  - Methods: 6–7 paragraphs
  - Results: 3 paragraphs
  - Discussion: 3–4 paragraphs
  - Conclusion: 1 paragraph


# 术语首次出现的定义策略（写作内嵌做法）
- Provide a short, plain-language definition immediately after the first occurrence (in parentheses or apposition).
  - risk communication: the purposeful exchange of risk information between experts and audiences.
  - terminology: field-specific words and phrases that carry technical meaning.
  - readability: how easily a text can be read and understood, given its style and vocabulary.
  - standardization: selecting one preferred term and definition for a concept and using it consistently.
  - non-native graduate students: readers enrolled in graduate programs whose first language is not English.
  - retrieval efficiency: how quickly and accurately readers find needed information, including time and query steps.
- Keep each definition to one or two short sentences; use consistent phrasing across the manuscript.


# 方法与测量的可操作细化（便于写作和实施）
- Corpus construction:
  - Collect short, topical texts from climate science, economics, public health, and policy organizations.
  - Match topics and length to reduce confounds.
  - Record metadata: source, domain, publication year, intended audience.
- Terminology annotation:
  - Tag terms for discipline, term type (single word vs multiword), and ambiguity (polysemy).
  - Compute terminology density (# terms/100 words) and definition clarity (presence/quality of definition).
  - Use two annotators; report agreement (e.g., Cohen’s kappa).
- Readability measures:
  - Compute Flesch-Kincaid Grade and Gunning Fog.
  - Token-level features: frequency bands, academic word coverage, technical term proportion.
  - Cohesion: connectives per 100 words; referential overlap (if tools available).
- Participant profiling:
  - Language proficiency (standardized test or validated self-report).
  - Domain familiarity (Likert scale).
- Tasks and outcomes:
  - Comprehension: accuracy (%) and calibrated confidence.
  - Reading time: milliseconds per item/text.
  - Retrieval: time-to-locate, number of queries, success (0/1), click depth.
  - Cognitive load: overall NASA-TLX score.
- Analysis:
  - Mixed-effects: outcome ~ condition + readability + proficiency + familiarity + (1|participant) + (1|text).
  - Mediation: readable path (condition → readability → outcome).
  - Report effect sizes (e.g., Cohen’s d, odds ratios); 95% CIs; check assumptions.
  - Correct for multiple tests (Holm).


# 写作建议（APA 7 与风格）
- APA 7 formatting:
  - Title page with running head (student papers: page number only if required by your institution).
  - Abstract on page 2; keywords on a new line below the abstract.
  - Headings: Use APA heading levels consistently (Level 1 for main sections).
  - Numbers, italics, quotations, and abbreviations follow APA rules.
  - Tables and figures: titles in sentence case; notes below as needed; refer to them in-text.
  - In-text citation formats: (Author, Year); for 3+ authors use first author et al. after first mention per APA 7.
  - References: hanging indent; DOIs in URL format when available.
- Style and clarity:
  - Prefer concrete verbs; avoid nominalizations when possible.
  - Keep sentences short; split complex clauses.
  - Use parallel structure in lists and hypotheses.
  - Avoid unexplained acronyms; define once, then use consistently.
  - Use active voice for methods; neutral tone for results; cautious interpretation in discussion.
- Reporting statistics (APA):
  - Include test statistics, degrees of freedom, p-values, effect sizes, and CIs.
  - Example: b = −0.21, SE = 0.07, t(58) = −3.01, p = .004, 95% CI [−0.35, −0.07].
- Visuals:
  - Keep figures readable; avoid clutter.
  - Use consistent color and labels; ensure accessibility (color-blind safe).
- Ethical statements:
  - Mention IRB/ethics approval, consent process, and data handling.
  - Provide data and code availability statement if possible; include preregistration link.


# 关键词与检索优化策略（不堆砌）
- Include primary keywords in:
  - Title (at least two of: risk communication; readability; terminology).
  - Abstract opening and methods sentences.
  - At least one Level-2 heading.
- Use natural variants once or twice:
  - “term standardization,” “technical vocabulary,” “lexical complexity.”
- Avoid overuse; keep density natural and readable.


# 可能的贡献与局限（写作提示）
- Contributions:
  - Demonstrate how terminology standardization improves L2 comprehension and retrieval.
  - Provide a portable standardization protocol for interdisciplinary teams.
  - Offer a combined metric set linking terminology, readability, and task performance.
- Limitations:
  - Single-language focus (English).
  - Graduate-only sample.
  - Readability indices’ limits for L2 readers.
- Future work:
  - Extend to multilingual texts and lay audiences.
  - Test interactive glossaries and adaptive definitions.
  - Examine long-form documents and real-world portals.


# 时间与产出清单（执行建议）
- Week 1–2: Corpus selection and annotation guide; IRB submission.
- Week 3–4: Annotation, agreement checks; text versioning and readability profiling.
- Week 5–6: Pilot tasks; refine comprehension and retrieval items.
- Week 7–8: Main data collection; preregister analysis.
- Week 9: Analysis; draft Results and Figures.
- Week 10: Write Discussion and finalize references; proofread APA style.


# 可直接复用的写作句型（示例）
- Problem statement: Climate risk communication often blends terminology from multiple disciplines, which may hinder L2 readers’ understanding.
- Aim: This study examines how disciplinary terminology and standardization affect non-native graduate students’ comprehension and retrieval efficiency.
- Contribution: We integrate terminology analysis with readability measures and user performance to propose evidence-based guidelines.
- Method cue: We used a mixed-methods design, combining corpus annotation with a controlled reading and retrieval experiment.
- Implication: The findings inform terminology practices for interdisciplinary teams producing climate risk materials.


# 清单：提交前核对
- All key terms defined at first mention.
- Sentences average under 20 words; no paragraph exceeds 6 sentences.
- Headings follow APA levels; tables/figures numbered and cited in-text.
- Hypotheses stated and mapped to analyses.
- Ethics, limitations, and data availability included.
- Keywords placed in title and abstract without overuse.

以上大纲与建议可直接指导写作，确保结构清晰、术语规范、符合APA 7与2500词限制。