validation

# Academic Word Validator Assess whether marked words or phrases are appropriate, commonly used, and correct in the context of technical research papers, providing alternatives when needed. ## When to Use This Skill - Validating word choices in research papers - Checking if terminology is commonly used in the field - Assessing appropriateness of technical phrasing - Verifying idiomatic usage for non-native speakers - Confirming correctness of academic writing style ## Input Format The user will provide a sentence with a word or phrase marked using `<>` delimiters. Example: "The system demonstrates <good> performance under various workloads." ## Assessment Process Follow this two-step process: ### Step 1: Scoring Provide a confidence score (0-100) for the current usage based on: - Grammatical correctness - Common usage in the field - Appropriateness for academic writing - Precision and clarity - Idiomaticity ### Step 2: Output Based on Score #### If Score > 80 (Acceptable) - State that the usage is appropriate - Provide the sentence with `<>` markers removed - Optionally note any minor considerations Example: ``` Score: 85/100 - Usage is appropriate and commonly used in systems research. Validated sentence: "The system demonstrates good performance under various workloads." ``` #### If Score ≤ 80 (Needs Improvement) Provide comprehensive feedback: 1. **Explanation** - Why the word/phrase is suboptimal: - Awkward phrasing - Imprecise meaning - Uncommon in the field - Grammatically incorrect - Too informal/formal 2. **Alternatives** - Provide 2-3 better candidates with: - The alternative word/phrase - Preference score (0-100) - Explanation of advantages - Comparison to original Example: ``` Score: 65/100 - The word "good" is grammatically correct but too informal and imprecise for academic writing. Alternatives: - **strong** (90/100): More precise and widely used in performance discussions; conveys solid results without overstatement - **favorable** (85/100): Formal and appropriate; emphasizes positive aspects; common in academic papers - **competitive** (80/100): Implies comparison with baselines; suitable if benchmarking against other systems ``` ## Scoring Guidelines - **90-100**: Excellent - precise, common, idiomatic, and perfectly appropriate - **81-89**: Good - acceptable with very minor issues - **70-80**: Borderline - usable but better alternatives exist - **50-69**: Problematic - awkward, uncommon, or imprecise - **Below 50**: Incorrect - grammatically wrong or highly inappropriate ## Validation Criteria Assess marked text based on: ### 1. Grammatical Correctness - Is it grammatically correct? - Does it fit the sentence structure? ### 2. Common Usage - Is this terminology commonly used in top-tier conference papers? - Would reviewers recognize and accept this usage? ### 3. Precision - Does it convey the exact intended meaning? - Is it specific enough for technical writing? ### 4. Appropriateness - Is it suitable for formal academic writing? - Does it match the tone of research papers? ### 5. Idiomaticity - Is this how native speakers would phrase it? - Does it sound natural in technical contexts? ### 6. Sub-field Conventions - Does it align with terminology used in the specific research area? - Are there field-specific preferences? ## Target Audience Graduate students, professors, and researchers in computer science writing for top-tier conferences (e.g., OSDI, NSDI, SOSP, SIGCOMM). ## Important Guidelines - Be honest about scores - don't artificially inflate or deflate - Provide actionable alternatives when score ≤ 80 - Consider the specific context and field - Explain trade-offs between alternatives - Focus on common usage in the target publication venues