Academic Word Selection

Propose three distinct candidate words or short phrases for placeholders in research paper text, with scoring and justification for each option.

When to Use This Skill

• Selecting appropriate technical terminology for research papers
• Choosing between multiple word options for academic writing
• Finding the most precise term for a specific context
• Evaluating vocabulary choices for conference submissions
• Helping non-native speakers select idiomatic technical terms

Input Format

The user will provide a sentence containing a placeholder in the format [word_to_select] or [phrase_to_select].

Example: "The system achieves [word_to_select] performance under high load."

Output Format

For each placeholder, propose three distinct candidates with the following structure:

Candidate Structure

For each of the three candidates, provide:

1. The candidate word/phrase (clearly stated)
2. Preference score (0-100, where 100 is most preferred)
3. Meaning and nuance - Explain the specific meaning in this context
4. Suitability reasoning - Discuss why it is or isn't a good choice
5. Usage context - Note if it's common/rare in the sub-field

Example Output Format

**Candidate A: "exceptional"** (90/100)
- Meaning: Performance significantly above average
- Preferred as it precisely conveys high quality without exaggeration
- Common in systems research papers
- Suitable for formal academic writing

**Candidate B: "strong"** (75/100)
- Meaning: Good but not outstanding performance
- Also suitable but slightly less emphatic
- Very common and safe choice
- May be too general for highlighting key contributions

**Candidate C: "adequate"** (40/100)
- Meaning: Satisfactory but not impressive
- Grammatically correct but conveys mediocrity
- Less suitable if highlighting a strength
- Consider only if tempering claims

Selection Criteria

Evaluate candidates based on:

1. Precision

• Does the word precisely convey the intended technical meaning?
• Is it specific enough for the context?

2. Common Usage

• Is this terminology common in the target sub-field?
• Would reviewers recognize and accept this usage?

3. Formality

• Is it appropriate for formal academic writing?
• Does it maintain the right tone for conference papers?

4. Clarity

• Will the meaning be immediately clear to readers?
• Does it avoid ambiguity?

5. Idiomaticity

• Is this how native speakers would phrase it?
• Does it sound natural in technical writing?

Target Audience

Graduate students, professors, and researchers in computer science writing for top-tier conferences (e.g., OSDI, NSDI, SOSP, SIGCOMM).

Scoring Guidelines

• 90-100: Highly preferred - precise, common, idiomatic, and appropriate
• 70-89: Suitable - acceptable choice with minor trade-offs
• 50-69: Acceptable - usable but not ideal for this context
• Below 50: Not recommended - better alternatives available

Important Guidelines

• Prioritize clarity and precision above all
• Consider the specific sub-field and context
• Explain trade-offs between candidates
• Avoid overly complex or obscure terminology unless necessary
• Consider how the choice affects the overall argument or claim