write-introduction

# Write Introduction Skill Write Chapter 1 (Introduction) for the thesis "Automation and Political Ideology: Task Displacement and the Conservative Shift Among Exposed Workers." This skill implements a structured, multi-pass writing workflow distilled from leading academic writing guides and adapted for a Master's thesis. ## Arguments - `draft` — Run the full pipeline: research, draft, style-match, verify (default) - `outline` — Produce only a detailed outline with paragraph-level annotations - `revise` — Revise an existing draft of Ch.1 (assumes `01_introduction.tex` already has content) ## Academic Writing Foundations This skill is built on best practices from: - **Keith Head** ("The Introduction Formula"): Hook → Question → Antecedents → Value-Added → Roadmap - **Jesse Shapiro** ("Four Steps to an Applied Micro Paper"): Distinguish *aspirational* paragraphs ("I show that X causes Y") from *contractual* paragraphs ("Section 2 does A, Section 3 does B"). Aspirational paragraphs are the heart of the introduction; contractual paragraphs are its skeleton. - **Claudia Goldin** ("Writing Tips"): Lead with your strongest result. The paper is persuasion, not a mystery novel. No generic section headings. - **Marc Bellemare** ("How to Write Applied Papers"): In a thesis, the introduction is longer than in a journal article — it should be self-contained enough that a reader who skips everything else still understands the contribution. - **Gallea's one-shot template**: Hook → Gap → Contribution → Results → Roadmap — compressed for a journal paper but expandable for a thesis. ### Key Principles 1. **No mystery novels** (Goldin): State the main finding in the first 2 paragraphs. The reader should know "automation exposure → conservative shift" before paragraph 3. 2. **Every sentence earns its place** (Shapiro): No filler. No "it is worth noting." No "interestingly." 3. **Aspirational before contractual** (Shapiro): Tell the reader *what you found* before telling them *how the chapter is organized*. 4. **Self-contained** (Bellemare): A busy committee member who reads only Ch.1 should still understand the research question, method, key findings, and contribution. 5. **Bridge, don't duplicate** (Head): The Antecedents section is a 3-4 paragraph map of the literature, NOT a mini literature review. Point to Ch.2 for depth. --- ## Target Structure (~450-550 lines, ~8-10 pages) ``` Chapter 1: Introduction ├── 1. Hook (2-3 paragraphs) │ Opening with the contemporary phenomenon: populist/conservative surge │ + economic disruption from automation. Ground in a specific fact or │ striking observation. Then pivot to the scholarly puzzle. │ ├── 2. Research Question (1 paragraph) │ Clear, precise statement: "I ask whether workers in occupations more │ exposed to task-displacing automation shift toward conservative │ political ideology." │ ├── 3. This Thesis: Approach & Findings (3-4 paragraphs) │ [ASPIRATIONAL — Shapiro] │ What I do: task displacement measure from BEA-KLEMS + ACS + O*NET, │ IRT ideology from CCES, pseudo-panel 2006-2022, TWFE estimation. │ What I find: β > 0 (automation → conservative shift), heterogeneous │ effects, lag structure. │ How I identify: shift-share logic, pre-determination of shares. │ ├── 4. Antecedents (3-4 paragraphs) │ [Head's "Antecedents" — brief, not Ch.2-depth] │ a. Task-based framework (ALM 2003) → automation measurement │ b. Economic shocks → politics (ADH 2013, Colantone-Stanig, Frey et al.) │ c. Cultural backlash vs economic insecurity debate │ Each paragraph should end with what the prior work DOESN'T do that │ this thesis addresses. │ ├── 5. Contribution (3-4 paragraphs) │ [Moved from Ch.2 §2.4 — Head's "Value-Added"] │ a. Comprehensive automation measure (task displacement, not just RTI/robots) │ b. Continuous ideology outcome (IRT estimates, not binary vote choice) │ c. Pseudo-panel spanning 2006-2022 (not single cross-section) │ d. Mechanism adjudication (economic insecurity vs cultural backlash) │ For each: why it matters, what it enables that prior work couldn't do. │ ├── 6. Roadmap (1 paragraph) │ [CONTRACTUAL — Shapiro] │ Chapter-by-chapter preview using \Cref{ch:...} for all chapters. │ Brief, functional, no more than 1 sentence per chapter. │ └── \Cref connections to all subsequent chapters ``` --- ## PHASE 1: RESEARCH (read existing chapters) Before writing a single word, you MUST read the following files to understand what the introduction needs to reference and not duplicate: ### Mandatory Reads ``` 1. thesis/CLAUDE.md → conventions, commands, bib keys 2. .claude/reference/literature-evidence.md → concrete findings from 20+ papers (use for Antecedents) 3. thesis/chapters/02_literature.tex → what Ch.2 covers (avoid duplication) 4. thesis/chapters/03_data.tex → data sources, sample sizes, match rates 5. thesis/chapters/04_methodology.tex → formulas, specifications, identification 6. thesis/chapters/05_results.tex → main coefficients, key tables/figures 7. thesis/references.bib → available citation keys 8. CLAUDE.md (root) → project context, measure pipeline, findings ``` ### What to Extract | Source | Extract for Introduction | |--------|------------------------| | Ch.3 | Data sources (CCES 2006-2022, ACS, BEA-KLEMS, O*NET), sample size, IRT ideology variable | | Ch.4 | Task displacement formula (briefly), 18 demographic groups, pseudo-panel design, TWFE spec | | Ch.5 | Main coefficient (β=0.291, p=0.06), lag structure (k=1 strongest), heterogeneous effects | | Ch.2 §2.4 | Contribution text to migrate to Ch.1 (shorten §2.4, expand Ch.1 §5) | | `references.bib` | Available citation keys — NEVER cite a paper not in the bib file | --- ## PHASE 1.5: BUILD ARGUMENTATIVE STRUCTURE Before drafting, use the **narrative-architect** agent to design the argumentative flow for the Antecedents and Contribution sections. The agent reads `.claude/reference/literature-evidence.md` and produces paragraph-by-paragraph outlines with specific paper citations. ### How to Use Dispatch the `narrative-architect` agent with: - **Goal**: "Build the Antecedents section of the Introduction: briefly position the thesis in three literatures (task-based framework, economic shocks → politics, mechanisms) and identify what prior work does NOT do." - **Target section**: "Chapter 1, §4 (Antecedents)" - **Constraints**: "3-4 paragraphs max. Must cite ALM 2003, ADHM 2020, Colantone & Stanig 2018, and Gallego & Kurer 2022. Each paragraph must end with a gap statement." The architect will return a structured outline. Use it as the backbone for Phase 2 drafting. ### Argumentative Flow Templates (from literature-evidence.md §7) The evidence base includes pre-built flow templates for: - **§7.1**: The Introduction Paradox (automation → rightward, not leftward) - **§7.5**: The 4 Contributions structure Use these as starting points. The narrative-architect agent refines them into paragraph-level outlines with specific citations. --- ## PHASE 2: DRAFT ### Writing Rules (MANDATORY) 1. **Voice**: First person singular. "I define", "I construct", "I estimate", "I find". Never "we" or "the author." 2. **Tense**: Present tense for methodology ("I define 18 groups"), past tense for data ("The CCES was administered..."), present for findings ("The results indicate..."). 3. **Citations**: `\citet{key}` when author is subject, `\citep{key}` for parenthetical. NEVER write "Author (Year)" manually. 4. **Cross-references**: `\Cref{ch:data}` at sentence start, `\cref{ch:data}` mid-sentence. Use liberally — the introduction is a navigation hub. 5. **Numbers**: Cite exact figures inline ("517,736 employed individuals", "83.4\% match rate"). Never round when precise numbers are available. 6. **No fabrication**: Every coefficient, p-value, and sample size must come from Ch.5 or the analysis outputs. If a number is not in the existing chapters, leave a `% TODO: verify [number]` comment. 7. **Equations**: At most 1-2 display equations in the introduction (the TD formula and maybe the TWFE spec). Keep them simple; full derivations are in Ch.4. 8. **Hedging**: "consistent with", "suggesting", "indicating". Never "clearly proves" or "undoubtedly." 9. **Paragraph structure**: Topic sentence → 2-4 supporting sentences → transition sentence. Every paragraph. 10. **No em-dashes**: Do NOT use `---` in prose. Use commas, parentheses, colons, or semicolons for asides and elaborations. Match Chapters 3-5 style. ### Anti-Patterns (NEVER do these) - Start with "In recent years..." or "Automation has become increasingly important..." - Write more than 2 sentences of abstract methodology without grounding in a concrete example - Use the word "interesting", "important", or "noteworthy" as filler - Write a paragraph that is just a list of citations: "Author1 (Year) found X. Author2 (Year) found Y. Author3 (Year) found Z." - Include a subsection structure — the introduction is ONE continuous flow - Duplicate the literature review — keep Antecedents to 3-4 paragraphs max - Use rhetorical questions (except very sparingly) - Write the roadmap paragraph as anything other than the LAST paragraph - Reference tables/figures from Ch.5 by number (they might renumber) — use `\Cref{tab:label}` ### Hook Strategies (choose one) **A. The Paradox Hook**: "Despite decades of rising returns to education and skill-biased technological change favoring cognitive work, the political response to automation has defied economic models: workers facing displacement move *rightward*, not toward the redistributive left." **B. The Fact Hook**: "Between 2006 and 2022, the most automation-exposed demographic groups in the United States experienced a [X]-point rightward shift in ideology..." **C. The Event Hook**: Start with a specific moment (2016 election, a factory closure, a policy debate) that crystallizes the tension. **D. The Literature Gap Hook**: "The China Shock literature established that trade-induced labor market disruption shapes political attitudes. But automation—a structural shock that is slower, broader, and harder to attribute—has received far less systematic attention." ### Opening Paragraph Template ```latex [Hook: 2-3 sentences establishing the phenomenon] [Pivot: 1 sentence framing the scholarly question] I ask whether workers in occupations more exposed to task-displacing automation shift toward conservative political ideology. Using a pseudo-panel of [N] demographic groups tracked through the Cooperative Congressional Election Study from 2006 to 2022, I find that a one-standard-deviation increase in group-level task displacement is associated with a [β]-point rightward shift in ideology, a pattern consistent with the cultural backlash mechanism proposed by \citet{colantone2021backlash} and \citet{manunta2025identity}. ``` --- ## PHASE 3: STYLE MATCHING After drafting, the text must be passed through a **style normalization pass** to match Chapters 3-5. Either: 1. **Self-check**: Re-read 40+ lines each from `03_data.tex`, `04_methodology.tex`, and `05_results.tex`. Compare sentence length, clause complexity, transition patterns. Revise the draft to match. 2. **Use the style-paraphraser agent**: If the draft feels "AI-generic" or doesn't match the thesis voice, dispatch to the `style-paraphraser` agent. ### Style Checklist - [ ] Average sentence length 25-35 words (mix short declarative + longer complex) - [ ] No em-dashes in prose (use commas, parentheses, colons, semicolons) - [ ] Colons before definitions/lists - [ ] (i)/(ii)/(iii) for inline enumeration, not bullet points - [ ] No "we", no passive where "I" works - [ ] Topic sentence opens every paragraph - [ ] Transition sentence closes every paragraph - [ ] No `\textbf{}` in running prose - [ ] Exact numbers, not rounded - [ ] `\emph{}` on first use of technical terms --- ## PHASE 4: VERIFICATION ### Compile ```bash cd /Users/alessandro/Projects/Tesi/thesis && tectonic main.tex ``` ### Check for: - [ ] No compilation errors - [ ] No undefined citations (`Undefined citation` warnings) - [ ] No undefined references (`Undefined reference` warnings) - [ ] All `\Cref` targets exist in Ch.2-5 - [ ] §2.4 contribution text has been shortened (not duplicated in both Ch.1 and Ch.2) ### Content Verification - [ ] Research question stated clearly within first 2 paragraphs - [ ] Main finding previewed within first 3 paragraphs (Goldin: no mystery novel) - [ ] At least 4 forward references to subsequent chapters - [ ] Contribution section has 3+ distinct points - [ ] Roadmap mentions all 5 subsequent chapters - [ ] No number appears without a source (Ch.3-5 or analysis outputs) - [ ] Introduction is self-contained (readable without Ch.2-5) --- ## Coordination with Ch.2 Restructuring When this skill is used, Ch.2 §2.4 (Contribution) should be shortened to a brief (1-2 paragraph) summary that says "this thesis contributes in four ways" and then points to Ch.1 for the full articulation. The detailed 150-line contribution section currently in Ch.2 should be migrated to Ch.1 §5. After writing Ch.1, update Ch.2's opening paragraph to include a backward reference: ```latex As outlined in \Cref{ch:introduction}, this thesis contributes to three literatures. This chapter reviews each in turn. ``` --- ## Example: Real Introduction Openings from Related Papers ### Anelli, Colantone & Stanig (2019) — "We Were The Robots" Opens with the economic mechanism: "automation represents a source of structural change in the economy that generates aggregate gains but with winners and losers." Then pivots to political consequences through multiple channels (anti-incumbent, economic nationalism, authoritarian attitudes). Uses specific mechanisms, not generic statements. ### Kurer & Palier (2024) — "The AI Shock and Socio-Political Attitudes" Opens with the broader context: "This paper evaluates the role of digital economic shocks in affecting Americans' social, cultural, and political beliefs." Connects to existing literature on economic backlash from outsourcing/trade, then identifies the gap (AI's complementing vs displacing effects). Clear bifurcation hypothesis stated upfront. ### Autor, Dorn, Hanson & Majlesi (2020) — "Importing Political Polarization" Opens with the puzzle: import competition from China affected both labor markets AND politics. States the finding in the first paragraph: trade shock moved districts toward more extreme candidates. Methodology follows immediately. ### Pattern: All strong introductions state the finding within the first 3 paragraphs.