用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
直接命令不会经过审查 Prompt;运行前请先检查来源。
npx skills add https://github.com/brycewang-stanford/Auto-Empirical-Research-Skills --skill text-mining-guide命令会保持在同一行。复制前请横向滚动并检查完整内容。
想先保存到本地?可下载 SkillsMP 当前能够提供的文件。
正在显示 SKILL.md
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.
中英双语学术降 AIGC / bilingual academic de-AIGC skill. Removes AI-generated writing signatures from empirical papers in economics, management, and the social sciences — in both English and Chinese. Covers Turnitin AI, GPTZero, Originality.ai on the English side and 知网 AMLC, 万方, 维普 on the Chinese side. Uses a six-step loop (intake → audit → claim-evidence check → differentiated rewrite → five-dimension self-score → cold-reader recheck) with two pattern libraries (22 English + 17 Chinese patterns), section-by-section strategies for empirical papers, and hard protections that keep every number, coefficient, and citation intact.
Use when a research task needs reproducible Kaggle discovery, metadata inspection, bounded public-data downloads, competition or kernel discovery, model discovery, or an explicitly approved Kaggle write/delete operation through the official CLI.
基于 SOC 职业分类
| name | text-mining-guide |
| description | Apply NLP and text mining techniques to research text data |
| metadata | {"openclaw":{"emoji":"🔍","category":"analysis","subcategory":"wrangling","keywords":["text mining","NLP","topic modeling","sentiment analysis","text preprocessing","natural language processing"],"source":"wentor-research-plugins"}} |
A skill for applying natural language processing (NLP) and text mining techniques to research data. Covers text preprocessing, feature extraction, topic modeling, sentiment analysis, and named entity recognition for analyzing surveys, abstracts, social media, and document corpora.
import re
from collections import Counter
def preprocess_text(text: str, lowercase: bool = True,
remove_numbers: bool = False,
min_word_length: int = 2) -> list[str]:
"""
Preprocess text for NLP analysis.
Args:
text: Raw input text
lowercase: Convert to lowercase
remove_numbers: Remove numeric tokens
min_word_length: Minimum token length to keep
"""
if lowercase:
text = text.lower()
# Remove URLs
text = re.sub(r"http\S+|www\.\S+", "", text)
# Remove HTML tags
text = re.sub(r"<[^>]+>", "", text)
# Remove special characters (keep apostrophes for contractions)
text = re.sub(r"[^a-zA-Z0-9\s']", " ", text)
# Tokenize
tokens = text.split()
if remove_numbers:
tokens = [t for t in tokens if not t.isdigit()]
# Remove short tokens
tokens = [t for t in tokens if len(t) >= min_word_length]
return tokens
def remove_stopwords(tokens: list[str],
custom_stopwords: list[str] = None) -> list[str]:
"""
Remove stopwords from token list.
"""
# Minimal English stopwords (extend as needed)
default_stops = {
"the", "a", "an", "and", "or", "but", "in", "on", "at",
"to", "for", "of", "with", "by", "is", "was", "are", "were",
"be", "been", "being", "have", "has", "had", "do", "does",
"did", "will", "would", "could", "should", "may", "might",
"this", "that", "these", "those", "it", "its", "not", "no"
}
if custom_stopwords:
default_stops.update(custom_stopwords)
return [t for t in tokens if t not in default_stops]
from sklearn.feature_extraction.text import TfidfVectorizer
def build_tfidf_matrix(documents: list[str],
max_features: int = 5000) -> dict:
"""
Build a TF-IDF document-term matrix.
Args:
documents: List of document strings
max_features: Maximum vocabulary size
"""
vectorizer = TfidfVectorizer(
max_features=max_features,
stop_words="english",
min_df=2, # Appear in at least 2 documents
max_df=0.95, # Ignore terms in >95% of documents
ngram_range=(1, 2) # Unigrams and bigrams
)
tfidf_matrix = vectorizer.fit_transform(documents)
return {
"matrix_shape": tfidf_matrix.shape,
"vocabulary_size": len(vectorizer.vocabulary_),
"top_terms": sorted(
vectorizer.vocabulary_.items(),
key=lambda x: x[1]
)[:20],
"vectorizer": vectorizer,
"matrix": tfidf_matrix
}
from sklearn.decomposition import LatentDirichletAllocation
def run_topic_model(tfidf_matrix, vectorizer,
n_topics: int = 10) -> list[dict]:
"""
Run LDA topic modeling on a document-term matrix.
Args:
tfidf_matrix: Sparse TF-IDF matrix
vectorizer: Fitted TfidfVectorizer
n_topics: Number of topics to extract
"""
lda = LatentDirichletAllocation(
n_components=n_topics,
random_state=42,
max_iter=50,
learning_method="online"
)
lda.fit(tfidf_matrix)
feature_names = vectorizer.get_feature_names_out()
topics = []
for idx, topic_weights in enumerate(lda.components_):
top_indices = topic_weights.argsort()[-10:][::-1]
top_words = [feature_names[i] for i in top_indices]
topics.append({
"topic_id": idx,
"top_words": top_words,
"label": "Assign a human-readable label based on top words"
})
return topics
Methods for selecting k (number of topics):
- Coherence score: Higher is better (use gensim's CoherenceModel)
- Perplexity: Lower is better (but can overfit)
- Human judgment: Do topics make interpretive sense?
- Domain knowledge: Expected number of themes in the corpus
Practical advice:
- Start with k = 5, 10, 15, 20 and compare
- Examine top words for each k -- look for coherent themes
- If topics are too broad, increase k
- If topics overlap heavily, decrease k
def simple_sentiment(text: str, positive_words: set,
negative_words: set) -> dict:
"""
Basic lexicon-based sentiment scoring.
Args:
text: Input text
positive_words: Set of positive sentiment words
negative_words: Set of negative sentiment words
"""
tokens = text.lower().split()
pos_count = sum(1 for t in tokens if t in positive_words)
neg_count = sum(1 for t in tokens if t in negative_words)
total = len(tokens)
score = (pos_count - neg_count) / max(total, 1)
return {
"positive_count": pos_count,
"negative_count": neg_count,
"score": score,
"label": (
"positive" if score > 0.05
else "negative" if score < -0.05
else "neutral"
)
}
| Task | Method | Application |
|---|---|---|
| Literature mapping | Topic modeling | Identify research themes in a corpus of abstracts |
| Survey analysis | Thematic coding + sentiment | Analyze open-ended survey responses |
| Social media analysis | NER + sentiment | Track public discourse on a topic |
| Content analysis | Classification + keyword extraction | Code qualitative data at scale |
| Bibliometrics | Co-word analysis | Map intellectual structure of a field |
Always validate text mining results against human judgment. Report preprocessing steps, parameter choices (e.g., number of topics, min_df, max_df), and model evaluation metrics. For topic models, include the top 10-15 words per topic and representative documents. For classification, report precision, recall, and F1 on a held-out test set. Acknowledge that automated text analysis supplements but does not replace close reading.