meta-synthesis-guide
Conduct qualitative meta-synthesis and evidence synthesis methods
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
メニュー
Conduct qualitative meta-synthesis and evidence synthesis methods
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
Route empirical-research requests through the Auto-Empirical Research Skills catalog when this whole repository is installed as one skill in Codex, CodeBuddy, Claude Code, or another IDE. Use to choose and load the right vendored AERS skill for causal inference, econometrics, replication, data acquisition, manuscript writing, peer review and referee responses, citation checking, de-AIGC editing, or full empirical-paper workflows without reading the entire repository at once.
公司金融实证研究的"漏斗式选题查找器"。互动开场先后询问 (1) 研究方向、(2) 候选标题数量 N, 再扫描全球文献(已出版英文学术期刊 + SSRN working paper + 全球高校 department seminar 1 年内日程),基于 Edmans (2024) "1000 Rejections" 红线生成 N 个候选标题,**通过并行 subagent(Agent 工具)批量生成计划书 + 查新;每个 subagent 必须强制调用 Skill 工具加载 econfin-proposal 与 novelty-check 两个预设 skill 完成各自模块**,**只有当 novelty score >= 9 时(即 JF/JFE/RFS 顶刊层次),subagent 才把 proposal + 查新报告合并的 md 写入 F:\Dropbox\CC\选题大全\<研究方向短名>\(以"简短选题名称-分数"命名,子文件夹名由 Step 0 从用户输入的研究方向派生);< 9 分的选题在 subagent 内部直接丢弃,绝不写盘、绝不输出**。当用户说"找选题"、"帮我找选题"、"想做 X 方向"、 "empirical CF idea search"、"批量生成研究计划书"、"100 ideas"、"econfin-idea-finder" 时触发。
Create and compile beautiful Beamer presentations following the Rhetoric of Decks philosophy. Use when making slides, creating decks, or compiling .tex presentation files.
Scaffold a new research project with standard directory structure, CLAUDE.md template, and documented README. Use this at the start of every new project to ensure consistent organization.
Download, split, and deeply read academic PDFs. Use when asked to read, review, or summarize an academic paper. Splits PDFs into 4-page chunks, reads them in small batches, and produces structured reading notes — avoiding context window crashes and shallow comprehension.
This skill should be used when the user asks to "create a slash command", "add a command", "write a custom command", "define command arguments", "use command frontmatter", "organize commands", "create command with file references", "interactive command", "use AskUserQuestion in command", or needs guidance on slash command structure, YAML frontmatter fields, dynamic arguments, bash execution in commands, user interaction patterns, or command development best practices for Claude Code.
| name | meta-synthesis-guide |
| description | Conduct qualitative meta-synthesis and evidence synthesis methods |
| metadata | {"openclaw":{"emoji":"⛓️","category":"research","subcategory":"deep-research","keywords":["meta-synthesis","qualitative evidence synthesis","meta-ethnography","thematic synthesis","systematic review"],"source":"wentor-research-plugins"}} |
A skill for conducting qualitative meta-synthesis -- the systematic integration of findings across multiple qualitative studies. Covers meta-ethnography (Noblit & Hare), thematic synthesis (Thomas & Harden), framework synthesis, and quality appraisal of qualitative studies.
Meta-synthesis is to qualitative research what meta-analysis
is to quantitative research -- it systematically combines
findings from multiple studies to produce higher-order
interpretations.
Key differences from meta-analysis:
- Interpretive, not statistical aggregation
- Aims to generate new understanding, not average effect sizes
- Synthesizes themes, concepts, and metaphors across studies
- Product is a new interpretation, not a pooled statistic
Appropriate when:
- Multiple qualitative studies exist on a topic
- You want to build theory or deepen understanding
- Individual studies have limited scope but collectively cover a phenomenon
- Policy or practice needs an integrated evidence base from qualitative work
Not appropriate when:
- Studies are too heterogeneous in topic to meaningfully compare
- Fewer than 3 qualitative studies exist
- The goal is to measure effect sizes (use meta-analysis instead)
def meta_ethnography_steps() -> dict:
"""
The seven steps of meta-ethnography (Noblit & Hare, 1988).
"""
return {
"step_1_getting_started": {
"description": "Identify the research question and intellectual interest",
"output": "Clear synthesis question"
},
"step_2_deciding_what_is_relevant": {
"description": "Systematic search and selection of qualitative studies",
"output": "Final set of included studies",
"note": "Use PRISMA flow diagram to document selection"
},
"step_3_reading_the_studies": {
"description": (
"Read and re-read included studies carefully. "
"Identify key metaphors, themes, and concepts in each."
),
"output": "List of first-order (participant quotes) and "
"second-order (author interpretations) constructs"
},
"step_4_determining_how_studies_are_related": {
"description": (
"Create a grid mapping constructs across studies. "
"Determine if studies are reciprocal (about similar things), "
"refutational (contradictory), or form a line of argument."
),
"output": "Construct comparison table"
},
"step_5_translating_studies": {
"description": (
"Translate the concepts of one study into the terms of another. "
"This is the core analytical step -- finding common meaning "
"expressed in different language."
),
"output": "Translated constructs across all studies"
},
"step_6_synthesizing_translations": {
"description": (
"Develop third-order constructs -- new interpretations "
"that go beyond what any single study found."
),
"output": "Third-order constructs (the synthesis)"
},
"step_7_expressing_the_synthesis": {
"description": "Write up the synthesis in a form accessible to the audience",
"output": "Published meta-synthesis paper"
}
}
Reciprocal translation:
Studies are about similar things. Translate them into each other.
"Study A calls it 'navigating uncertainty'; Study B calls it
'managing ambiguity'; Study C calls it 'living with not knowing'.
The overarching construct is 'Tolerating the Unknown.'"
Refutational synthesis:
Studies contradict each other. Explore why.
"Study A found empowerment through peer support; Study B found
peer support increased anxiety. This refutation may be explained
by the stage of illness at which support was received."
Line of argument synthesis:
Studies address different aspects that together form a whole.
"Study A covers diagnosis, B covers treatment, C covers recovery.
Together they reveal a trajectory of 'Reconstructing Identity.'"
Stage 1: Free coding of findings
- Treat the findings sections of included studies as data
- Code them line by line, as in primary qualitative analysis
Stage 2: Organizing codes into descriptive themes
- Group codes into descriptive themes
- These are "close to" the original studies
Stage 3: Generating analytical themes
- Go beyond the content of the original studies
- Generate new interpretive constructs
- Answer the synthesis research question
Tools for appraising qualitative study quality:
CASP Qualitative Checklist (10 items):
- Was there a clear statement of aims?
- Is a qualitative methodology appropriate?
- Was the research design appropriate?
- Was the recruitment strategy appropriate?
- Was data collected in a way that addressed the research issue?
- Was the relationship between researcher and participants considered?
- Were ethical issues considered?
- Was data analysis sufficiently rigorous?
- Was there a clear statement of findings?
- How valuable is the research?
JBI Checklist for Qualitative Research (10 criteria)
Decision: Include all studies or exclude low-quality studies?
- Sensitivity analysis: Run the synthesis with and without
lower-quality studies to see if conclusions change.
Use the ENTREQ (Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research) statement. Report: the synthesis methodology used, the search strategy and selection criteria, quality appraisal results, a table of included studies with their key constructs, the synthesis process with clear evidence trails, and how third-order constructs were derived from the primary studies.