{"id":"col-source-shortlist","audience":"college","category":"research","technique":"grounding","title":"Pick the best sources from a messy search list","free":false,"task":"Your Sociology 210 paper is on remote work and loneliness, and your professor only accepts peer-reviewed sources published in 2018 or later. From the search results you saved, you want exactly 3 numbered picks, each with a one-sentence reason under 20 words, in plain text, and nothing else. Use only the details in your list, and don't describe what a study found unless your list says it. Write a prompt that gets you that shortlist.","materialLabel":"Your saved search results (attached to your prompt automatically)","material":"SOC 210 paper - saved results (library search: \"remote work\" AND loneliness)\n\n1. Hartley, J. & Osei, K. (2021). Isolation and Remote Work: A Longitudinal Survey of 2,400 Employees. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Peer-reviewed.\n\n2. \"Why Working From Home Is Making Us Lonely\" (2023). Blog post by a career coach on a publishing platform. Not peer-reviewed. Really readable though!!\n\n3. Brandt, L. (2016). Telecommuting and Social Ties. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. Peer-reviewed.\n\n4. Nakamura, R., Silva, P. & Grant, E. (2022). Loneliness Among Hybrid Workers: Evidence from Three Countries. Work & Society Review. Peer-reviewed.\n   >> Library note on the record: RETRACTED by the journal in 2024 (data error). Do not cite.\n\n5. Okafor, C. & Lind, M. (2020). Remote Work, Belonging, and Wellbeing. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Peer-reviewed. Survey of hospital admin staff.\n\n6. State of Remote Work 2024. Industry report by a video-call software company. Not peer-reviewed. Has nice charts.\n\n7. Reyes, M. (2023). Social Connection in Distributed Teams: A Mixed-Methods Study. Human Relations Quarterly. Peer-reviewed. Interviews + survey.\n\nmy notes: prof said \"no blogs, no company reports, nothing older than 2018, and check for retractions.\" Brandt is cited by everyone tho. Full text for #1 #5 #7 available through the library. Paper due Dec 4, need sources approved by Friday.","rules":[{"type":"numberedItems","count":3},{"type":"plainText"}],"mistakes":[{"title":"Asking \"which sources are best\"","why":"The AI picks how many to return and usually ranks every item with long explanations.","fix":"Be exact: \"exactly 3 numbered picks.\"","checks":["numberedItems"]},{"title":"Not giving your professor's rules","why":"The AI judges sources by its own sense of quality, so a famous 2016 article or a readable blog can sneak in.","fix":"Spell out the criteria: \"peer-reviewed, 2018 or later, not retracted.\"","checks":["r0"]},{"title":"Letting the AI describe the findings","why":"The AI fills reasons with what a study \"found\", and it is guessing, because your list has no findings.","fix":"Add: \"Base each reason only on details in my list. Don't describe findings.\"","checks":["r1"]},{"title":"Getting a lecture on the rejects","why":"By default the AI explains every source it rejected, which buries your 3 picks.","fix":"Say: \"Output only the 3 picks, nothing else.\"","checks":["r2"]},{"title":"Forgetting where it's going","why":"AI loves bold titles, which paste as asterisks into a form or email.","fix":"Ask for \"plain text, no bold.\"","checks":["plainText"]}],"promptHints":[{"label":"Says how many picks","patterns":["\\b(3|three)\\b.{0,20}(pick|source|choice|item)"]},{"label":"Gives the professor's criteria","patterns":["peer.?review","2018","retract"]},{"label":"Limits each reason","patterns":["\\d+\\s*words","one sentence","one.?line"]},{"label":"Says to use only the list","patterns":["only.{0,30}(list|details|results)","don't (describe|invent|add)","do not (describe|invent|add)","no findings"]},{"label":"Asks for plain text","patterns":["plain","no bold","no markdown","no formatting"]}],"hint":"The AI doesn't know your professor's source rules or that your list has no findings in it. Give the criteria, the exact count, and tell it to reason only from your list.","rubricLabels":["The 3 picks are exactly Hartley & Osei (2021), Okafor & Lind (2020) and Reyes (2023), the only peer-reviewed, non-retracted sources from 2018 or later in the list","Each reason is one sentence that uses only details from the list (such as journal, year, peer review, method or sample) and does not claim what a study found or concluded","Outputs only the 3 picks: no intro line, no list or discussion of rejected sources, and no closing tips or offers"]}