The Tools

Act as a systematic literature reviewer. Conduct deep research on:
Topic: [INSERT TOPIC]
Scope: peer-reviewed articles, 2019–2025, English.
Deliver:
1. A taxonomy of the field (key sub-themes).
2. Top 15 most-cited works with one-line takeaways.
3. 3 emerging research fronts.
4. Outstanding debates and contradictions.
Provide a bibliography with DOIs at the end.

I am pasting [N] full papers below. For each, extract:
- Research question
- Theoretical framework
- Method & sample
- Key findings
- Limitations
Then produce a comparative matrix and a 200-word synthesis identifying convergences and disagreements.

Here is the Deep Research plan you proposed. Revise it:
- Replace generic web sources with academic databases.
- Add inclusion / exclusion criteria (PRISMA-style).
- Specify the output as a structured table, not prose.
- Limit to studies published in [DATE RANGE].

Based on the full text I provided, critique the methodology of [AUTHOR, YEAR]:
- Sampling and ecological validity
- Operationalisation of key constructs
- Statistical choices
- Threats to internal and external validity
End with: "If I were replicating this study, I would change …"

Using Deep Research, trace the theoretical lineage of [THEORY / CONSTRUCT].
Deliver:
1. The originating work (author, year, DOI).
2. Key extensions and revisions in chronological order.
3. Major critiques and counter-theories.
4. Current status in [MY DISCIPLINE] as of 2024–2025.
Provide DOIs for every cited work.

Across the papers I pasted, locate findings that disagree on [SPECIFIC QUESTION].
For each disagreement:
- Quote the conflicting claims (with author + year).
- Compare samples, measures and analytic methods.
- Suggest the most plausible explanation for the conflict (moderator, measurement, context).
Conclude with one testable hypothesis my study could address.

Audit your previous response for hallucinated or unverifiable references.
For every citation you produced:
1. Confirm the author(s), year, title and journal exactly.
2. Provide a working DOI or stable URL.
3. If you cannot verify it with a real source, mark it [HALLUCINATED] and remove.
4. Flag any quotation that is paraphrased rather than directly traceable to the source.
Return a clean, verified reference list plus a separate "Removed / unverifiable" list.