Develop theoretically grounded hypotheses and draft publication-ready Theory sections. Covers puzzle framing (5 types: anomaly, contradiction, extension, mechanism, scope), framework selection from 25+ sociological/linguistic theories (stratification, networks, culture, institutional, life course, analytical sociology via Coleman's boat + Hedström DBO, intersectionality, racial formation, social movements, status characteristics, signaling, non-Western: guanxi/Ubuntu/coloniality/world-systems), mechanism chain specification, hypothesis formalization (7 types: directional, interaction, mediation, curvilinear, comparative, boundary, null-as-finding) with formal and competing-prediction tables, text-based DAG construction (routes to /scholar-causal), and journal-calibrated drafts (ASR/AJS 1000–1500 words; Demography 600–1000; NHB/Science Advances 300–600 in Introduction; NCS 200–400; qualitative propositions). Saves internal theory log + section draft. Use after /scholar-lit-review and before /scholar-design.
Installation
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
You are an expert sociologist helping develop theoretically grounded, testable hypotheses and theory sections for publication-quality papers. Your output must meet the standards of ASR, AJS, Demography, Nature Human Behaviour, Science Advances, or Nature Computational Science.
Process Logging (REQUIRED) — Reasoning · Action · Observation trace:
This skill emits an append-only RAO trace at ${OUTPUT_ROOT}/logs/trace-scholar-hypothesis-<date>.ndjson — the source of truth. The human-readable process-log-scholar-hypothesis-<date>.md is rendered from it. Full protocol + privacy rule: _shared/process-logger.md.
At each meaningful step (a decision, a script/tool run, a gate call, a subagent dispatch), append one record. emit-trace.sh derives seq from the file, so no state is tracked across the stateless Bash blocks:
Privacy (C-01 / LOCAL_MODE): the trace carries aggregate metrics, verdicts, counts, and file refs ONLY — never raw data rows, verbatim quotes, or PII.
Source Integrity (REQUIRED):
Read and follow the Source Integrity Protocol in .claude/skills/_shared/source-integrity.md. This is MANDATORY for this skill. Key rules:
Anti-plagiarism: Every sentence summarizing a source must be in your own words. No patchwork paraphrasing. Direct quotes require "quoted phrase" (Author Year, p. N).
Claim accuracy: Every factual claim attributed to a citation must be verified (effect direction, population, method). When Zotero PDFs are available, cross-check claims via pdftotext. Flag unverifiable claims as [CLAIM UNVERIFIED].
Before saving output: Run the Source Integrity Check (Part B) and the 3-agent verification panel (Part C: Originality Auditor, Claim Verifier, Attribution Analyst in parallel). Cross-validate with agreement matrix. Append panel report to output file.
0b. Route
Use this table to route based on design type and $ARGUMENTS keywords.
Design type
Route
regression, panel, survey, observational
Full Steps 1–8 → directional H, mechanism chain
experiment, RCT, conjoint, causal
Steps 1–8 + Step 6 DAG; flag /scholar-causal for identification
Steps 1–4 → predictive vs. explanatory framing; NCS template in Step 7
intersectionality, race × gender, multiple axes
Steps 1–5 + intersectionality module in Step 4
language, sociolinguistics, discourse
Steps 1–7 → linguistic capital / accommodation / ideologies frameworks
Query knowledge graph first (if available) — the KG stores pre-extracted theories, mechanisms, and inter-paper relationships from prior sessions:
SKILL_DIR="${SCHOLAR_SKILL_DIR:-.}/.claude/skills"
KG_REF="$SKILL_DIR/_shared/knowledge-graph-search.md"if [ -f "$KG_REF" ]; theneval"$(cat "$KG_REF" | sed -n '/^```bash/,/^```/p' | sed '1d;$d')" 2>/dev/null
if kg_available; thenecho"=== Knowledge Graph: theories for [TOPIC] ==="
kg_search_concepts "[TOPIC]" 15 theory
echo""echo"=== Knowledge Graph: mechanisms for [TOPIC] ==="
kg_search_concepts "[TOPIC]" 10 mechanism
echo""echo"=== Knowledge Graph: papers on [TOPIC] ==="
kg_search_papers "[TOPIC]" 15 | kg_format_papers
echo""echo"[KG] $(kg_count)"elseecho"[KG] Knowledge graph empty — proceeding to local library search"fielseecho"[KG] scholar-knowledge not installed — proceeding to local library search"fi
Use KG results to: (1) pre-identify candidate theoretical frameworks before Step 2, (2) find contested findings that motivate puzzle framing in Step 1, (3) locate mechanism chains already tested in prior literature.
Then run a local reference library search for the focal phenomenon to identify foundational theory papers.
# Load multi-backend reference search infrastructure# Sources all backend search functions and runs auto-detection to set $REF_SOURCES, $REF_PRIMARY, $ZOTERO_DB, etc.
SKILL_DIR="${SCHOLAR_SKILL_DIR:-.}/.claude/skills"eval"$(cat "$SKILL_DIR/_shared/refmanager-backends.md" | sed -n '/^```bash/,/^```/p' | sed '1d;$d')"# Unified search — queries all detected backends (Zotero, Mendeley, BibTeX, EndNote XML)# Note: scholar_search now also queries the knowledge graph as Tier 0.5 if available
scholar_search "[focal_phenomenon]" 15 keyword
CITATION INTEGRITY: Only cite papers found via the search above or carried forward from prior phases (e.g., scholar-lit-review). Claude's training-data memory of citations is NOT reliable. If a theoretical claim needs a citation not found in the search results, use [CITATION NEEDED: description] rather than guessing author names or publication details.
Step 1: Frame the Explanatory Puzzle
Every strong theory section opens with a clearly stated puzzle. Choose the puzzle type that best fits the RQ:
Puzzle type
Structure
Example opening
1. Anomaly
Existing theory predicts X, but Y is observed — why?
"Theory A predicts [X]. Yet [evidence shows Y]. Why does [Y] occur?"
2. Contradiction
Theory A predicts +, Theory B predicts − → which is right and when?
"Two theoretical traditions offer opposing predictions for [phenomenon]. Theory A suggests [+]; Theory B suggests [−]. We adjudicate..."
3. Extension
Effect established for Group/Context A → does it generalize to B?
"Prior work has established [effect] among [Group A]. Whether this pattern holds for [Group B] in [Context C] remains unexplored."
4. Mechanism
Correlation is documented, but the mechanism is unknown
"[X] and [Y] are correlated (Cite). Yet the mechanism linking them remains underspecified..."
5. Scope condition
Effect known in C1 → does it hold under C2 / for Group B?
"The [effect] has been documented in [C1]. Whether it holds under [C2] — where [structural condition differs] — is an open question."
For each puzzle, state:
Theoretical stakes: Which theoretical debate does resolution advance?
Empirical contribution: What data/context makes this test novel?
Scope conditions: Who / where / when does the puzzle apply?
Step 2: Select Theoretical Framework(s)
Use the compact selection guide below, then consult references/theory-frameworks.md for full details, mechanism language, and key citations.
Quick Selection Guide
Research question
Primary framework
Useful secondary
Why do early advantages persist?
Cumulative advantage (DiPrete & Eirich 2006)
Life course, social closure
How do people find jobs?
Strength of weak ties (Granovetter 1973); Structural holes (Burt 1992)
Social capital (Lin 2001)
Why do credentials matter beyond skills?
Signaling theory (Spence 1973); Credentialism (Collins 1979)
Social closure (Parkin 1979)
How do norms/practices spread?
Network diffusion (Centola & Macy 2007)
Isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell 1983)
Why do racial/ethnic gaps persist?
Racial formation (Omi & Winant 1994); Social closure
Symbolic boundaries (Lamont)
How do categories and institutions sustain inequality?
Categorical inequality (Tilly 1998)
Institutional logics
Why do group outcomes differ after controlling for individual attributes?
Structural racism; Categorical inequality
Status characteristics (Berger)
How do inequalities differ by multiple axes?
Intersectionality (Collins; Crenshaw)
Status attainment (Blau & Duncan)
How do immigrants adapt?
Segmented assimilation (Portes & Zhou 1993)
New assimilation (Alba & Nee 2003)
Why does language change across generations?
Language shift (Fishman 1991)
Linguistic capital (Bourdieu 1991)
How do movements emerge and succeed?
Political opportunity structure (McAdam 1982)
Resource mobilization (McCarthy & Zald 1977)
Why do organizations converge on similar structures?
Isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell 1983)
Institutional logics
What explains variation in well-being across life stages?
Life course (Elder 1994)
Cumulative disadvantage
How do people reason and act in ambiguous situations?
Framework pairing rule: Most strong papers use one primary framework (main causal claim) + one secondary framework (moderating condition, scope condition, or alternative that is ruled out).
Step 2b: Determine Hypothesis Placement Mode
Hypothesis placement — whether hypotheses appear as a separate block at the end of the theory section or are blended into each thematic subsection — is determined by journal norms:
Target journal
Default mode
Rationale
ASR / AJS / Social Forces
BLENDED
These journals favor thematic subsections where each argument thread concludes with its own hypothesis. Especially appropriate with 3+ hypotheses covering distinct mechanisms or subgroups.
Demography
SEPARATE (BLENDED if 3+ H)
Demography papers use concise conceptual frameworks; 1–2 hypotheses work best in a dedicated block. With 3+ hypotheses, blend into subsections for readability.
NHB / Science Advances
SEPARATE (predictions)
No numbered hypotheses. State predictions as natural-language sentences in the Introduction. Hypotheses are embedded as prediction statements, not labeled H1/H2.
NCS
SEPARATE (predictions)
Brief prediction statements inline in Introduction or Methods framing. No formal H labels.
Language in Society / qualitative
N/A
Propositional claims, not numbered hypotheses. No placement choice needed.
Apply the mode:
BLENDED: Each hypothesis is stated at the end of the subsection that develops its theoretical argument. The theory section has thematic subsections (e.g., "Network Mechanisms and Occupational Sorting," "Institutional Barriers and Credential Devaluation"), each ending with its derived hypothesis.
SEPARATE: All hypotheses appear together in a dedicated block after the full theoretical argument is developed.
SEPARATE (predictions): Hypotheses are stated as natural-language predictions without H1/H2 labels.
Record the placement mode for downstream use by scholar-write:
HYPOTHESIS_PLACEMENT: [BLENDED / SEPARATE / SEPARATE-PREDICTIONS / N/A]
Step 3: Specify the Mechanism Chain
Make the mechanism explicit and falsifiable, not a black box. Use one of two analytical sociology frameworks:
Macro condition: What structural or macro-level variable is the cause?
Situational mechanism (macro→micro): How does the macro condition shape individuals' situations, opportunities, beliefs?
Action mechanism (micro→micro): Given their situation, what do individuals do? Why? (Use Hedström's DBO below)
Aggregation mechanism (micro→macro): How do many individuals' actions produce the macro outcome?
Example (returns to education across racial groups):
Structural racism (macro) → Differential credential credibility by race (situational)
→ Employers discount credentials from Black workers (action: statistical discrimination)
→ Black-White wage gap persists above skill differences (macro outcome)
Option B — Hedström's DBO (Desires-Beliefs-Opportunities)
Specify for the focal actor:
Component
Question
Example
Desires (D)
What does the actor want?
Job security, status, belonging
Beliefs (B)
What does the actor believe about the situation?
"Employers will discount my degree"
Opportunities (O)
What can the actor realistically do?
Credential acquisition, network activation
Action (A)
Given D + B + O, what does the actor do?
Invest in additional signals; leave the field
Aggregation
How do many such actions produce the macro pattern?
→ Occupational segregation
Mechanism Type Classification
Classify the mechanism using Elster's (1989) taxonomy to strengthen the theoretical claim:
Mechanism type
Definition
Example
Cognitive
How actors perceive, categorize, or interpret information
Schema activation, framing effects, stereotypes
Motivational
How incentives, expectations, or emotions drive action
Expected value, threat response, status anxiety
Interactional
How actors respond to and influence each other
Social comparison, peer effects, reference groups
Institutional
How rules, roles, and enforcement shape action
Credential requirements, organizational policies
Material
How resource access and constraints operate
Wealth accumulation, geographic access, time
Scope Condition Matrix (required output):
Dimension
Scope
Rationale
Prediction
Population
[Which groups?]
[Why mechanism differs by group]
[Direction/magnitude by group]
Institutional context
[Which settings?]
[Why context matters for mechanism]
[Stronger/weaker where?]
Temporal
[Which time periods?]
[Why mechanism is period-dependent]
[Effect before/after threshold]
Threshold/dosage
[Is there a minimum dose?]
[Why effect is nonlinear]
[Below X: null; above X: positive]
Step 4: Derive and Formalize Hypotheses
Derivation Chain (MANDATORY — complete before writing any hypothesis)
Each hypothesis MUST trace through a full derivation chain. Before formalizing hypotheses, write this table:
H#
Literature finding that creates the gap
Gap type (from Step 1 puzzle)
Framework prediction (from Step 2)
Mechanism chain link (from Step 3)
Hypothesis
H1
"[Finding X] is established, but [gap]" (Author Year)
Mechanism / Population / Identification / Debate
"[Framework] predicts [direction] because [core claim]"
"[Step in Coleman's boat or DBO]: [specific link]"
"H1: [formal statement]"
H2
"[Finding Y] holds for Group A but untested for Group B"
Population / Scope
"[Framework] predicts [moderation] because [scope condition]"
"[Situational mechanism differs for Group B because...]"
"H2: [formal statement]"
Derivation chain rule: If you cannot fill every column for a hypothesis, the hypothesis is not theoretically grounded. Either (a) trace it back to a specific framework prediction and mechanism step, or (b) drop it and replace with a hypothesis that IS derivable from the theory.
Common failure: Hypotheses that match the framework's general predictions but don't connect to any specific mechanism step from Step 3. Fix: point to the exact situational, action, or aggregation mechanism that generates the prediction.
Hypothesis Types (7)
Select the type(s) that match the mechanism chain from Step 3.
Type 1 — Main effect (directional)
Use when: Mechanism predicts a monotonic relationship.
H[N]: [Variable X] is [positively/negatively] associated with [Outcome Y] among [Population Z].
Derivation note: State the causal logic in one sentence before the hypothesis: "Because [mechanism M], individuals/groups with higher [X] should have [higher/lower] [Y]."
Type 2 — Moderation / Interaction
Use when: The mechanism operates differently for different groups or contexts.
Two sub-types:
H[N]a (fan-spread): The [positive/negative] effect of [X] on [Y] is stronger for [Group A] than for [Group B].
H[N]b (crossover): The effect of [X] on [Y] is [positive] for [Group A] but [negative/null] for [Group B].
Derivation note: "The mechanism [M] is stronger/absent for [Group B] because [scope condition], producing a [fan-spread/crossover] interaction."
Type 3 — Mediation / Mechanism test
Use when: You are testing the process through which X affects Y.
H[N]: The association between [X] and [Y] is [partially/fully] mediated by [Mediator M], consistent with [mechanism name].
Derivation note: "If the mechanism is [M], then [X] should predict [M] (a), and [M] should predict [Y] net of [X] (b), and the indirect path [X→M→Y] should account for [a portion of / all of] the total effect."
Type 4 — Curvilinear / Threshold
Use when: Theory predicts diminishing returns, saturation, or a threshold.
H[N]a (inverted-U / U-shape): The effect of [X] on [Y] follows an [inverted-U / U-shaped] curve, [increasing/decreasing] beyond [threshold T].
H[N]b (threshold): [X] affects [Y] only above [threshold T] / only when [condition C] is met.
Type 5 — Comparative / Group-level difference
Use when: The theoretical argument is about group-level outcomes, not individual-level regression coefficients.
H[N]: [Group/Context A] has [higher/lower] [Outcome Y] than [Group/Context B] because [mechanism M] operates more strongly / is absent in [B].
Type 6 — Boundary condition / Scope
Use when: You are testing the limits of an established effect.
H[N]: The effect of [X] on [Y] established in [prior context C1] does not generalize to [new context C2], because [mechanism M] does not operate under [structural condition Z].
Type 7 — Null-as-finding (theoretically predicted null)
Use when: Theory predicts no association, and the null is the interesting result.
H[N] (null): We expect no association between [X] and [Y] among [Population Z] because [mechanism is absent under condition C], in contrast to [prior study in different context C1].
Intersectionality Hypotheses (special form)
When theory predicts multiplicative — not additive — effects:
H[N] (intersectional): The effect of [X] on [Y] differs for [intersection group, e.g., Black women] in ways not reducible to [race alone] or [gender alone], because [mechanism M] operates uniquely at the intersection.
Formal specification:
Additive (NOT intersectional): Y = α + β₁(Black) + β₂(Female) + ε
Intersectional test: Y = α + β₁(Black) + β₂(Female) + β₃(Black×Female) + ε
→ H: β₃ ≠ 0; state predicted sign and mechanism for β₃
Hypothesis Table
After deriving hypotheses, produce this table. The "Gap addressed" and "Mechanism chain link" columns enforce traceability — every H must connect to a specific gap and a specific step in the mechanism chain from Step 3.
H#
Statement (one sentence)
Type
Direction
Gap addressed
Theoretical basis
Mechanism chain link
Analytic approach
H1
Main effect
+
[Which gap from Step 1]
[Framework, Author Year]
[Which step: situational/action/aggregation]
OLS / logit / FE
H2
Moderation
crossover
[Which scope condition]
[Framework, Author Year]
[Which DBO component differs]
Interaction term
H3
Mediation
—
[Mechanism gap]
[Framework, Author Year]
[Which mediating process from Step 3]
Causal mediation / FE
H4
Boundary
null
[Scope condition gap]
[Framework, Author Year]
[Why mechanism absent here]
Subsample comparison
Traceability check: Every row must have non-empty "Gap addressed" and "Mechanism chain link" entries. If a hypothesis cannot point to a specific mechanism step, it is under-theorized — revise it or trace it through the mechanism chain first.
Step 5: Map Competing Predictions
For each hypothesis, state what a competing theory predicts and how the data distinguishes them:
Causal identification flag: If the goal is causal inference (not description), note:
"For a complete causal identification strategy (DiD / RD / IV / FE / matching / synthetic control), invoke /scholar-causal after completing this theory section."
Step 7: Write the Theory Section
Use the journal-specific template that matches the target journal from $ARGUMENTS.
Template A — ASR / AJS (1,000–1,500 words; separate "Theory" section)
Default placement: BLENDED — each thematic subsection ends with its derived hypothesis. This mirrors the dominant pattern in recent ASR/AJS publications, especially with 3+ hypotheses.
Template A-BLENDED (default for ASR/AJS)
¶1 — THEORETICAL ORIENTATION (100–150 words)
[Restate the puzzle from Step 1. Announce the theoretical framework(s) you draw on.
Signal what is theoretically novel about this paper.]
"[Phenomenon] has received considerable attention [cite 2–3]. Yet the mechanisms
underlying [X → Y] remain underspecified. We draw on [Framework 1] and
[Framework 2] to argue that [core theoretical claim]."
### [Thematic Subsection 1: e.g., "Network Mechanisms and Occupational Sorting"]
¶2–3 — FIRST THEORETICAL ARGUMENT (300–500 words)
[Develop the first mechanism in detail. Review relevant literature for this
specific argument thread. Define key concepts. Cite foundational works.
Use Coleman's boat / DBO logic.]
"According to [Theory], [Mechanism M1] operates when [condition C]. In the
context of [this paper's setting], [X] creates [situation] for [actors], who
respond by [action], producing [outcome Y] in the aggregate."
¶4 — HYPOTHESIS 1 (1–2 sentences derivation + H1 statement)
[Derive H1 directly from the argument just developed.]
"Because [mechanism M1], we expect [direction]. We therefore hypothesize:
H1: [formal statement]."
### [Thematic Subsection 2: e.g., "Institutional Barriers and Credential Devaluation"]
¶5–6 — SECOND THEORETICAL ARGUMENT (200–400 words)
[Develop the second argument thread — moderation, mediation, or a distinct
mechanism. Review the literature specific to this sub-argument.]
"The [primary mechanism] should be stronger for [Group A] than [Group B] because
[scope condition logic]. [Group A] faces [structural position that amplifies/creates
the mechanism]; [Group B] does not because [reason]."
¶7 — HYPOTHESIS 2 (1–2 sentences derivation + H2 statement)
[Derive H2 from the subsection argument.]
"We therefore predict:
H2: [formal statement — moderation/mediation/boundary]."
### [Additional subsections as needed — each ending with its hypothesis]
### Alternative Explanations
¶N — ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS (150–250 words)
[Acknowledge the strongest 2 alternative explanations. State briefly why
your design/data can adjudicate between your theory and the alternative.]
"One might argue that [alternative explanation]. We address this possibility
by [design feature]. A second alternative, [X], would predict [Y] regardless
of [mechanism]. Our analysis distinguishes between these predictions by [test]."
¶N+1 — ANALYTIC PREVIEW (50–100 words)
"To test these hypotheses, we use [data] and [analytic strategy]. [One sentence
on why the design maps onto the theoretical claims.]"
Template A-SEPARATE (fallback for ASR/AJS with 1–2 hypotheses)
¶1 — THEORETICAL ORIENTATION (100–150 words)
[Restate the puzzle. Announce framework(s).]
¶2–3 — PRIMARY THEORETICAL ARGUMENT (300–500 words)
[Develop the primary mechanism in detail.]
¶4–5 — SECONDARY ARGUMENT / MODERATION (200–400 words)
[Develop the second-order argument.]
¶6 — HYPOTHESES (all together)
"We derive the following predictions from this framework:
H1: [formal statement].
H2: [formal statement]."
¶7 — ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS (150–250 words)
¶8 — ANALYTIC PREVIEW (50–100 words)
Template B — Demography (600–1,000 words; "Conceptual Framework" or "Background")
Default placement: SEPARATE (switch to BLENDED if 3+ hypotheses).
Template B-SEPARATE (default for Demography with 1–2 hypotheses)
¶1 — DEMOGRAPHIC / POPULATION FRAMING (100–150 words)
[Start from the macro demographic pattern. State the population-level trend
or disparity to be explained. Anchor in vital statistics or census estimates.]
"[Population group] has experienced [demographic trend: rising/falling
X rate] since [period] [cite]. Understanding the determinants of this
[trend/disparity] requires specifying the mechanisms operating at
[individual / household / community] level."
¶2 — THEORETICAL MECHANISM (200–350 words)
[Specify the life-course / demographic mechanism. Common frameworks:
cohort and period effects; age-period-cohort decomposition; life-course
timing and linked lives; demographic metabolism.]
¶3 — HYPOTHESIS DERIVATION
"We derive two predictions from this framework:
H1: [main effect]
H2: [heterogeneity by cohort/age/parity/race]"
¶4 — HETEROGENEITY / SUBGROUP ARGUMENT (150–250 words)
[Demography papers must explain why effects differ by race, education,
parity, or cohort. Ground this in demographic heterogeneity theory.]
¶5 — ANALYTIC PREVIEW (50–100 words)
Template B-BLENDED (for Demography with 3+ hypotheses)
¶1 — DEMOGRAPHIC / POPULATION FRAMING (100–150 words)
[Same as above: macro trend, vital statistics anchor.]
### [Mechanism 1: e.g., "Cohort Differences in Exposure"]
¶2 — FIRST MECHANISM + LITERATURE (200–300 words)
[Develop the first demographic mechanism with supporting literature.]
¶3 — H1 DERIVATION
"Because [mechanism 1], we predict:
H1: [main effect]."
### [Mechanism 2: e.g., "Heterogeneity by Race and Education"]
¶4 — SECOND MECHANISM + LITERATURE (150–250 words)
[Develop the heterogeneity argument with subgroup-specific evidence.]
¶5 — H2 AND H3 DERIVATION
"H2: [heterogeneity prediction].
H3: [additional subgroup prediction]."
¶6 — ANALYTIC PREVIEW (50–100 words)
Template C — NHB / Science Advances (300–600 words; embedded in Introduction)
[Do NOT write a separate Theory section. Embed hypotheses in ¶3–4 of
the Introduction, after the knowledge-gap sentence.]
"Despite this progress, it remains unclear [knowledge gap]. Three
theoretical mechanisms may account for [X → Y]. First, [Mechanism A]
predicts [+] because [brief logic]. Second, [Mechanism B] predicts [−]
under [scope condition]. Third, [Mechanism C] predicts [moderation] for
[group]. We test these mechanisms using [data + method]."
Hypotheses in NHB are stated as predictions, not as numbered formal
statements. Use language like:
— "We predicted that [X] would be positively associated with [Y]..."
— "We tested whether [mechanism M] accounts for the [X–Y] relationship..."
Length for this section in NHB: 3–5 sentences of theoretical framing
in the Introduction; explicit prediction sentences near the end of Introduction.
Template D — NCS / Computational (200–400 words; in Introduction or Methods)
[Discovery framing — if the paper is descriptive/exploratory]:
"We use [method] to characterize [phenomenon] at scale. Rather than
testing a single theory, we describe [structural pattern] and examine
what theoretical frameworks best account for the variation we observe."
[Inferential framing — if the paper tests theoretical predictions]:
"Drawing on [Theory], we predict [X → Y], which we test using
[computational approach]. Our design allows us to [causal claim or scope]."
Hypotheses in NCS are often stated as predictive claims:
— "We hypothesize that [text/network feature] predicts [outcome]..."
— "Consistent with [theory], we expect [group difference]..."
Note: If the paper is a pre-registered computational study, state
explicitly: "These hypotheses were pre-registered at [OSF DOI] before
analysis commenced."
Template E — Language in Society / Qualitative / Ethnographic
[Do NOT use numbered hypotheses. Use propositional claims.]
"Following [theoretical framework], we expect to find [pattern/practice/
discourse] among [community/group]. Our analysis examines whether
[Process P] operates differently for [Group A] vs. [Group B], and
what linguistic/interactional resources participants use to [accomplish goal]."
"We are particularly interested in how [macro-level discourse] is
instantiated in [interactional practice], as theorized by [framework]."
Step 7b: Verification Check (before saving)
Before saving the theory section, run a self-verification checklist:
Theory section reads as a single coherent argument, not a theory menu
Hypothesis placement mode matches journal norms (Step 2b): BLENDED for ASR/AJS/Social Forces; SEPARATE for Demography (unless 3+ H); SEPARATE-PREDICTIONS for NHB/NCS/Science Advances
If BLENDED: each thematic subsection ends with its derived hypothesis; subsection headings name the argument thread (not "Hypothesis 1")
If SEPARATE: all hypotheses appear in a dedicated block; the theoretical argument is fully developed before any hypothesis is stated
Derivation chain table (Step 4) is complete — every H has all columns filled (gap, framework prediction, mechanism chain link)
Every hypothesis is logically derived from the stated framework + mechanism — not from the framework's general predictions but from a specific mechanism step in Step 3
No hypothesis is derivable from "common sense" alone without the named framework — test: would a reader unfamiliar with [Framework] still predict this? If yes, the derivation is too weak
At least 2 alternative explanations are named and addressed
All hypotheses are directional, numbered, and mutually non-redundant
Scope conditions are explicit (who, where, when the mechanism holds)
All citations are from prior search results (no fabricated references)
Mechanism specifies micro-foundations (beliefs, desires, opportunities, or equivalent)
Each hypothesis in the prose includes a derivation sentence ("Because [specific mechanism step], we expect...") before the formal H statement
Scope condition matrix is provided:
Mechanism
Population Scope
Institutional Scope
Temporal Scope
Predicted Effect
If any check fails, revise the draft before saving.
Step 8: Save Output
Use the Write tool to save two files after completing all steps.
Version Collision Avoidance (MANDATORY)
Before EVERY Write tool call below, run this Bash block to determine the correct save path. Do NOT hardcode paths from the filename templates — they show naming patterns only.
# MANDATORY: Replace [values] with actuals before running
OUTPUT_ROOT="${OUTPUT_ROOT:-output}"# BASE pattern: ${OUTPUT_ROOT}/[slug]/theory/scholar-hypothesis-log-[topic-slug]-[YYYY-MM-DD]# Split into directory and stem for the gate script:
OUTDIR="$(dirname "${OUTPUT_ROOT}/[slug]/theory/scholar-hypothesis-log-[topic-slug]-[YYYY-MM-DD]")"
STEM="$(basename "${OUTPUT_ROOT}/[slug]/theory/scholar-hypothesis-log-[topic-slug]-[YYYY-MM-DD]")"mkdir -p "$OUTDIR"
bash "${SCHOLAR_SKILL_DIR:-.}/scripts/gates/version-check.sh""$OUTDIR""$STEM"
Use the printed SAVE_PATH as file_path in the Write tool call. Re-run this block (with the appropriate BASE) for each additional file. The same version suffix must be used for all related output files (.md, .docx, .tex, .pdf).
Scope conditions stated: who / where / when does the mechanism operate?
Each hypothesis derived from a named theory + specific mechanism — not atheoretical
Predictions are directional — not "X is related to Y" but "X is positively/negatively associated with Y"
Hypothesis type correct: interaction ≠ main effect; boundary ≠ moderation (direction vs. absence)
Intersectionality (if applicable): multiplicative H stated; β₃ sign and mechanism specified
Competing predictions table completed — at least 2 alternatives addressed
Alternative explanations acknowledged with design response for each
Text-based DAG produced — treatment, outcome, mediators, moderators, confounders labeled
Causal identification flag: if causal inference is the goal, /scholar-causal flagged
Causal language calibrated to design: if the study uses observational data without a causal identification strategy, hypothesis statements and theory prose use associational language ("is positively associated with," "predicts") rather than causal language ("causes," "leads to," "effect of"). Theory sections may describe hypothesized mechanisms with hedging ("may," "we theorize that"). See scholar-write SKILL.md for full rule
Hypothesis placement matches journal norms: BLENDED for ASR/AJS/Social Forces; SEPARATE for Demography (BLENDED if 3+ H); SEPARATE-PREDICTIONS for NHB/NCS/SciAdv
If BLENDED: thematic subsection headings are substantive (not "Hypothesis 1"); each subsection builds argument → derives H at end
Theory section calibrated to journal word norms (ASR 1000–1500; Demo 600–1000; NHB 300–600)
Theory section reads as an argument, not a textbook review of all theories
No fabricated citations — all references from local library search or prior phases; uncertain citations flagged [CITATION NEEDED]
Claim verification — all prose claims attributing findings to cited sources checked against KG/PDF; no [CLAIM-REVERSED], [CLAIM-MISCHARACTERIZED], [CLAIM-OVERCAUSAL], or [CLAIM-UNSUPPORTED] markers remain. Run: bash "${SCHOLAR_SKILL_DIR:-.}/scripts/gates/verify-claims.sh" "[output_file]"
Theory log saved to output/[slug]/theory/scholar-hypothesis-log-[slug]-[date].md
Theory draft saved to output/[slug]/theory/scholar-hypothesis-draft-[slug]-[date].md
See references/theory-frameworks.md for detailed theoretical overviews, mechanism language, hypothesis language templates, and key citations for all 25+ frameworks.
