Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› curranthro-data-analysis
curranthro-data-analysis
GitHub指导人类学手稿的分析与解释，确保经得起专家审查及公开评论。强调以证据为基础、呈现替代解读、纳入反证、公平引用及量化规范，旨在提升论证透明度与可信度。
Trigger Scenarios
从田野笔记或转录本构建结果与解释部分
审稿人或预期评论者要求更多证据或稳健性分析
调和受访者言行差异或处理预设与涌现主题
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill curranthro-data-analysis -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "curranthro-data-analysis",
"description": "Use when executing and reporting the analysis\/interpretation for a Current Anthropology (CA) manuscript so it survives expert review and the published CA✩ Comments — disciplined ethnographic\/qualitative inference, honest interpretation, and (for biological\/archaeological work) sound quantitative analysis. Guides analysis and interpretation norms; it does not fabricate evidence or quotations."
}
Analysis & Interpretation (curranthro-data-analysis)
CA reviewers and commentators are expert and read across every subfield, so the same results may be read
by an ethnographer, an archaeologist, and a bioanthropologist at once — and for a Major Article, their
critiques are published as signed Comments beside your paper. At CA, interpretation is analysis:
qualitative inference is held to a real standard, not waved through as "context." This skill covers
execution and reporting norms; design decisions live in curranthro-research-design.
When to trigger
- Building the results/interpretation section from fieldnotes, transcripts, material, or measurements
- A reviewer (or anticipated commentator) asked for more evidence, alternative readings, or robustness
- Reconciling what interlocutors say with what they do, or pre-planned vs. emergent themes
- Making the analysis transparent enough to be credible without exposing protected sources
Analysis & interpretation norms CA expects
- Show the evidence behind the claim. Ground each interpretive claim in specific, quoted, or described evidence (a fieldnote moment, an utterance, an artifact, a measurement) — not assertion.
- Pursue the alternative reading. Name the strongest rival interpretation and show why the evidence favors yours; report where it doesn't fit cleanly. A Major Article that pre-empts the obvious Comment is far stronger when the Comments arrive.
- Disconfirming evidence. Include cases that complicate the argument rather than curating only confirming material; say what you learned from the friction.
- Quote and represent fairly. Translate and contextualize interlocutors' words; do not flatten them into illustrations of your theory. Attribute analytics to communities where they originate.
- For quantitative subfields (biological/archaeological): report effect sizes and uncertainty, not just significance; pre-specify where possible; correct for multiple comparisons; validate measures; avoid conflating ancestry with social race.
- Reflexivity in the analysis. Note how your position shaped which evidence was available and how you read it.
Mixed-methods / computational specifics
- If you code text or use computational tools on field/archival data, document the procedure, validate against close reading, and treat outputs as interpretable evidence, not ground truth.
- Keep the qualitative core legible: a table or model never replaces the interpretive argument at CA.
CA comment-facing analysis ledger
For a CA Major Article, treat analysis as something that must survive not only peer review but also the published conversation around the paper. Build a comment-facing ledger before drafting results.
| Likely commentator position | Claim they will test | Evidence to prepare | Reply posture |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adjacent subfield expert | Does this travel beyond the focal case/subfield? | boundary cases, comparative anchors, portability limits | clarify scope without retreating from the central claim |
| Method specialist | Does the evidence warrant the interpretation? | audit trail, rival reading, robustness/triangulation | show what each evidence mode can and cannot decide |
| Area or historical specialist | Are local terms, archives, or chronologies flattened? | contextual detail, source limits, translation choices | acknowledge specificity as part of the contribution |
| Theory critic | Is the concept doing explanatory work or merely labeling? | mechanism, genealogy, counterexample | refine the concept's reach |
| Ethics/community critic | Who bears the cost of the claim? | consent/provenance trail, anonymization logic, attribution | protect participants while answering the analytic point |
Distinguish article type: a Major Article needs an agenda-setting claim robust enough for signed Comments and a Reply; a shorter report can make a bounded empirical contribution, but still needs to state the limits that commentators would otherwise supply for you.
Transparency while you work (not at the end)
- Maintain an audit trail linking claims to sources (evidence tables, coded excerpts) so the argument is checkable without de-anonymizing protected interlocutors.
- For quantitative work: set/report seeds, pin software versions, keep exhibit numbers matched to outputs
(see
curranthro-transparency-and-data).
Anti-patterns
- Cherry-picked quotes that illustrate the thesis with no disconfirming cases
- Interpretation asserted with no grounding evidence ("informants felt…")
- Treating qualitative evidence as merely decorative around a "real" quantitative result (or the reverse)
- Stars-only tables with no effect sizes/intervals (biological/archaeological work)
- Extracting community analytics without attribution; speaking for rather than with interlocutors
- Numbers or quotations the underlying record cannot support — commentators will check
Output format
【Main claim】the interpretive/empirical result
【Evidence】what grounds it (fieldnote / utterance / material / measure)
【Article posture】Major Article / report-length contribution; comment exposure named?
【Alternative reading】named and adjudicated?
【Disconfirming evidence】included and addressed? [Y/N]
【Anticipated Comments】top 2-3 commentator objections and prepared evidence
【Quant rigor】(if applicable) effect size + uncertainty + validation
【Reflexivity】position's effect on the analysis noted? [Y/N]
【Reply-ready limit】what the Reply can concede without breaking the argument
【Next】curranthro-tables-figures
What CA reviewers and commentators probe, by mode
| Mode | The check a referee/commentator runs first | The fix that earns trust |
|---|---|---|
| Ethnographic / interpretive | Is the claim grounded in shown evidence, or asserted? | Quote/describe the moment; name the rival reading |
| Archival / material | Are the silences and biases of the source read, not ignored? | Read against the grain; state what the archive cannot show |
| Biological / quantitative | Is uncertainty honest and "race" handled carefully? | Effect sizes + intervals; ancestry ≠ social race; validated measures |
| Linguistic | Does the transcript support the indexical claim? | Show the discourse data; tie form to social meaning |
Calibration anchors (hedged)
- The bar is agenda-setting significance with honest interpretation, not within-subfield novelty or statistical decoration; a rich case with a thin argument rarely clears CA Major-Article review.
- CA practices methodological pluralism — match the inference standard to the mode, and never trade interlocutors' dignity for a sharper claim.
- Specific transparency mechanics can change — confirm against the journal's current guidelines.
Supplementary resources
../../resources/external_tools.md— qualitative-analysis, transcription, and quantitative packages../../resources/exemplars/library.md— how verified CA papers ground interpretation
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:49
