Build a reusable reading record that keeps source claims, methods, quotations, and interpretation traceable. 제공할 내용: Reading purpose and output, Source types and access, Current tools and synthesis workflow. 예상 결과: A staged note template with source metadata, claim evidence, synthesis links, and review prompts.
1
맥락 추가
텍스트는 이 브라우저에 유지됩니다. AILesson Prompts는 이를 모델이나 서버로 보내지 않습니다.
2
프롬프트
채워지지 않은 필드는 플레이스홀더로 표시되므로 프롬프트를 복사하고 편집할 수 있습니다
Design a literature reading and note-taking template for the supplied purpose.
Question, output, audience, discipline, depth, and time:
[purpose]
Source types, language, citation style, and access constraints:
[sources]
Tools, naming, tags, collaboration, review, and current problems:
[workflow]
Use progressive stages: capture, triage, close reading, claim extraction, critique, synthesis, and revisit. Keep verbatim quotation, faithful paraphrase, author claim, reported evidence, reader interpretation, question, and proposed use in separate labeled fields. Every quote or precise claim must retain source ID and page, section, table, paragraph, timestamp, or other locator; never invent a locator. Record version, access date for mutable sources, method, sample, measures, comparator, uncertainty, funding/conflict, correction status, and applicability only where relevant.
Keep the core template short enough for routine use, with optional modules by source type. Define stable IDs, file naming, controlled tags, status values, links between related/contradictory claims, and rules for incomplete reading. Include a rapid 10-minute version, a full version, a completed example using the sample details, quality checks, and a weekly synthesis query. Avoid encouraging large copyrighted excerpts; quotations should be only as long as needed for analysis.
기본적으로 비공개프롬프트 구성은 브라우저에서 로컬로 이루어집니다. 조직에서 허용하지 않는 한 기밀 정보를 AI 서비스에 입력하지 마세요.
입력에서 결과까지
적용 예시
구체적인 맥락이 이 레시피를 바로 사용할 수 있는 결과로 바꾸는 방법을 확인하세요
실제 입력
Reading purpose and output
Review reminder-message research to decide whether a city library should design a local randomized test. Output is a 1,000-word evidence memo for operations leaders in two weeks. Need enough depth to compare effect, acceptability, workload, and access equity. About 45 minutes per shortlisted paper.
Source types and access
Journal articles, working papers, local pilot reports, vendor webpages, and interview summaries in English or Chinese. Zotero citation keys; page numbers for PDFs and heading plus access date for webpages. Some reports are internal. Do not store long copyrighted passages.
Current tools and synthesis workflow
Zotero for bibliography, Obsidian Markdown for notes, shared evidence table later. Current notes mix quotations with my summaries and omit denominators. Need weekly Friday synthesis. Tags should stay under 12 controlled values. Collaborator may comment but not overwrite source notes.
예시 출력
Core note filename: citationKey--short-title.md. Header: Note ID; full citation/Zotero key; source type/version; language; access/status; confidentiality; research-question relevance; reading status {Captured, Triaged, Partial, Complete, Verified}; last checked.
10-minute triage: one-sentence author question; population/context; method; outcomes; relevance {Direct, Indirect, Context, Exclude}; three candidate claims with locators; obvious limitation; read/skip reason. Mark “Partial—do not cite synthesis” until claim fields are verified.
Full claim block: Claim ID; author claim (faithful paraphrase); minimal quote if wording matters + locator; evidence/method; numerator/denominator or sample; comparator; estimate/unit/uncertainty; time/geography; author limitation; reader critique labeled Interpretation; applicability to local library; supporting/conflicting Claim IDs; proposed memo use; verification status. Optional modules: randomized study includes allocation/attrition; interview includes recruitment/coding/deviant cases; webpage includes publisher incentive/archive date; internal report includes access restriction.
Filled example: Note C-2026-reminders, Complete not Verified. Claim C1: reminders group collected 63% versus control 58%, randomized 1,204 adults at four urban libraries; 5 percentage points, 95% CI 1-9; locator Results, Table 2. Author limitation: excludes patrons without mobile number. Interpretation: effect transfer and access equity remain uncertain. Proposed use: supports testing, not rollout. No quotation stored because numeric paraphrase suffices. Link conflict/compatibility only after another claim uses matching outcome.
Controlled tags: effect, acceptability, workload, equity, method, local, randomized, qualitative, commercial, limitation, verify, contradiction. Friday query: group Verified claims by outcome, then list conflicting IDs and missing populations. Checks: locator opens; quote matches; denominator present; interpretation labeled; mutable version/date current; confidentiality preserved; collaborator comments remain separate.
효과가 있는 이유
1
Separating source language from reader interpretation prevents later notes from turning inference into quotation
2
Progressive depth avoids spending full-review effort on sources that do not answer the research question
결과 확인
Can every quotation and precise claim be traced to a source and exact locator
Are author claims, evidence, paraphrase, interpretation, and questions stored separately
Is the routine template small enough to use while retaining decision-relevant method fields
안심하고 사용하세요
자주 묻는 질문
이 레시피를 언제 사용해야 하는지, 무엇을 제공해야 하는지, 그리고 어떤 부분에서 사람의 검토가 여전히 중요한지에 대한 실용적인 답변
What should I prepare before using “Design a literature reading and note-taking template”?
For “Design a literature reading and note-taking template,” prepare Reading purpose and output, Source types and access, and Current tools and synthesis workflow. Replace placeholders only with information you can verify. If a detail is unknown, preserve that uncertainty explicitly instead of asking the model to infer it.
When is the “Design a literature reading and note-taking template” result not ready to use?
The result is not ready if it does not yet deliver the stated outcome—A staged note template with source metadata, claim evidence, synthesis links, and review prompts—from the supplied evidence, or if it relies on unresolved assumptions, missing approvals, or invented details. Use the checks as release gates: revise the source inputs or assign a named, authorized reviewer instead of polishing an unsupported output.
Which AI tools have recorded tests for “Design a literature reading and note-taking template”?
The published test record for “Design a literature reading and note-taking template” lists ChatGPT as of 2026-08-28. This confirms recorded runs, not guaranteed compatibility or identical results in later product versions. For another tool or version, keep every constraint visible and repeat the result checks before use.
ChatGPT
