AFP Policy & CSSCI Topics
Decode policy; generate 3–5 CSSCI topics
AFP Policy & CSSCI Topics
Decode policy; generate 3–5 CSSCI topics
Showcase
Description
AFP prompt system for in-depth policy analysis—three-level source attribution, interpretation of hot topics, and academic mapping—and CSSCI topic generation (3–5 topics, each with policy basis, theoretical foundation, theoretical and practical significance, and publication potential assessment). Supports two entry points: A1 panoramic analysis and A2 targeted analysis, plus B reverse matching from ideas. Runs with Auto-Flow: strict step-by-step progression, silent background self-checks, a heartbeat HUD, and hard stops at each stage.
Recommended by
Dancang
Why we love this skill
Connects policy verification, structured interpretation, and academic problem formulation through traceable sources, theoretical mapping, and literature evidence to identify 3–5 CSSCI topics.
Related Skills
View all
CSSCI Research Topics & Proposals
A policy decoding and CSSCI research topic generation skill designed for education master's and PhD students and university faculty. Triggered when users say things like 'help me turn education policies into research topics', 'how to write CSSCI papers from education policies', 'interpret the Double Reduction policy for journal publication', 'give me research topics based on the Education Powerful Country guidelines', or 'education policies + proposal framework'. It uses the Policy-Traceable Topic Method (policy intent -> academic gap -> disciplinary focus) to produce traceable interpretations, 3 to 5 high-potential topics, and proposal skeletons. Version 1.0.0. > This skill is not just a file collection; it acts as an academic topic advisor right inside your chat box. > > It goes through five steps: **Policy Anchoring** (a one-line "policy ID") -> **Three-Step Traceable Breakdown** (policy intent / academic gap / disciplinary focus) -> **Topic Generation** (3 to 5 topics, each with policy basis + theoretical foundation + theoretical/practical significance + publication potential rating) -> **Proposal Skeleton** (the highest-potential topic directly provides research questions / review framework / analytical approach / innovations) -> **Traceability Verification** (each topic is marked with the original policy source, and anything not mentioned in the original text is marked as "to be verified", ensuring no fabrication). > > What you get: a traceable policy interpretation, 3 to 5 CSSCI/PKU-core-rated topics, and 1 ready-to-fill research proposal skeleton. Built-in real breakdown examples for Double Reduction, the New Curriculum Standards, and the Education Powerful Country guidelines; suitable for higher education, basic education, vocational education, educational technology, and other fields.
Policy Tracing & CSSCI Topics
Turn national policy materials into verifiable, traceable CSSCI research topics. Suitable inputs include full policy texts, older and newer versions of documents, policy keywords, policy lists, or document numbers. Whether the materials are complete or not, build a source record covering the policy origin, issuing body, document number, date, level, and validity status. Check each item against authoritative source texts, noting the citation location, source link, and verification status—“consistent,” “uncertain,” or “needs verification”—to avoid mistaking summaries for original policy language. Building on this verification, identify additions, strengthened measures, and phased-out content in newer and older policies. Extract high-frequency terms, policy context, and timing windows, then connect policy trends to real-world problems supported by evidence. Next, develop research questions at the levels of phenomena, mechanisms, and theory; match them with perspectives such as institutional theory, principal–agent theory, and policy diffusion; and identify research gaps through recent, traceable literature. The result is a pool of candidate topics with theoretical support, literature evidence, and proposed data and methods. Finally, select 3–5 CSSCI topics and assess each one’s policy timeliness, theoretical and practical value, and publication feasibility. Provide the policy basis, real-world problem, theoretical perspective, literature gap, data sources, and methodological approach. Confirmed results can be compiled into a structured research report that preserves complete source details, verification status, and audit-trail information—suitable for topic development in policy research, public administration, economics and management, and related social sciences.
H&SS Topic Selection AFP
Humanities and Social Sciences Topic Selection Engineering System 🎯 Adaptive Coverage System: | Topic Type | System Fit | Difficulty Level | |------------|------------|------------------| | National Social Science Fund | ✅ Core Application | ★★★★★ | | Ministry of Education Humanities and Social Sciences Project | ✅ Fully Compatible | ★★★★☆ | | National Education Science Planning Key Projects | ✅ Fully Compatible | ★★★★☆ | | Provincial Social Science Planning | ✅ Fully Compatible | ★★★☆☆ | | Vocational Education/Teaching Reform Projects | ✅ Fully Compatible | ★★★☆☆ | 📊 Six-Stage Delivery Process (P0-P5 Mandatory Steps): | Stage | Phase | Core Output | Key Action | |-------|-------|-------------|------------| | P0 | Anchor Your Base | Personal Resources & Position Assessment | Take stock of your academic accumulation, existing achievements, and team resources | | P1 | Policy Decoding & Real Problem Extraction | Policy Analysis Table + Problem List | Scan the latest policy documents to uncover issues that truly matter to the review committee | | P2 | Atomic-Level Object Decomposition | Minimum Granularity Object Table | Break down grand propositions into core research objects | | P3 | Nine-Grid Topic Explosion | 9 Topic Direction Matrix | One object, 9 angles, select the optimal direction | | P4 | Critical Review & Finalization | Revision Suggestions + Risk Checklist | Two-role confrontation: applicant vs. blind reviewer, iterative refinement | | P5 | Asset Packaging | Topic Core Asset Memorandum | Final topic + reasoning logic + ready for proposal writing | 🔧 Built-in Standard Tool Library: ✓ Two-Role Confrontation System — Topic Planner ↔ Blind Review Expert (self vs. self PK) ✓ Naming Red Line Check — No colons/dashes/subtitles allowed, must end with "research" ✓ Trinity Rule — Qualifier + Object + Problem (invisible scoring sheet) ✓ Real-Time Policy Update — Synchronized with latest guidelines from NSSF, MOE, and Education Science Planning ✓ Nine-Grid Topic Matrix — Systematically spread 9 angles, visualize innovation comparison ✓ Blind Review Risk Assessment — Predict topic weaknesses in review 📈 Expected Results: 📌 Grant Approval Rate — From average 20-30% to 60-70%+ (depending on prior accumulation) ⏱️ Topic Selection Cycle — From 3-6 months of polishing to 2-3 weeks of systematic finalization 🎯 Hit Accuracy — From "broadcasting" to precisely targeting the review logic of the target committee 📦 Continuity — The Topic Memorandum can directly interface with "Grant Proposal Writing AFP" for a complete closed loop
Information
- Version
- v6
- Last updated
- Runtime credits
- Usage-based
- Models
- Auto
