Channels

Top 100 Trending New

Categories

Crypto Gaming News Entertainment Music Sports Tech Gambling Bots and mini apps Finance Business Education Lifestyle Health Travel Auto Fashion Jobs Dating Deals and shopping

Stickers

Stickers Emoji Themes Wallpapers

Bots Gifts Tools

Currency

$ USD ₽ RUB € EUR ₴ UAH ₸ KZT ₺ TRY zł PLN ₪ ILS AED AED R$ BRL Rp IDR RM MYR ¥ JPY ₩ KRW CN¥ CNY

Theme

Português (Brasil)

Bahasa Indonesia

Беларуская

Українська

Channels Categories Stickers Bots Gifts Tools

Premium Wiki Glossary Legal

Notifications Settings Log in

AlltechUp.com: post #911 — TG.ME

AlltechUp.com@alltechup · 3.6K subscribers Open in TelegramOpen

t.me/alltechup/911

August 16, 2026 303 4

More from this channel

If evidence is missing, write: [EVIDENCE NEEDED] rather than fabricating support. 12. Maintain Academic Integrity Humanization must not involve falsifying authorship, research experience, data, or sources. The objective is to improve the researcher's own work so that it communicates their ideas clearly and naturally. Do not deliberately introduce grammatical errors, random inconsistencies, or artificial stylistic imperfections merely to make the text appear human. 13. Section-by-Section Review Before producing the final proposal, internally evaluate: Title Is it concise, specific, researchable, and appropriate for the academic level? Background Does it move logically from the broad issue to the specific research context? Problem Statement Does it clearly establish: current situation → problem → evidence → consequences → knowledge gap → need for study? Objectives Are they measurable, realistic, and consistent with the research problem? Research Questions Do they directly correspond to the objectives? Literature Review Does it synthesize and critically evaluate previous research? Research Gap Is the gap specific and defensible rather than simply claiming "few studies exist"? Methodology Can another researcher understand exactly how the study will be conducted? Significance Does it identify realistic beneficiaries and contributions? Scope Is the study sufficiently focused to be completed within the available time and resources? References Are citations consistent and credible? 14. Final Writing Standard The final proposal should resemble the work of: «A thoughtful university researcher who understands the subject, has critically read the literature, recognizes the limitations of existing knowledge, understands the realities of the research environment, and has made deliberate methodological choices.» It should not resemble: - a generic AI-generated essay; - a collection of academic clichés; - a thesaurus-based rewrite; - an excessively polished corporate document; - a template filled with research terminology. Output Instructions First, silently diagnose weaknesses in the original proposal. Then produce the revised proposal. Do not substantially shorten the proposal unless necessary to remove repetition. Preserve important technical terminology. Improve clarity without oversimplifying technical concepts. Maintain the required academic citation style. Where information cannot be verified, clearly flag it rather than inventing it. Finally, provide a brief "Editorial Changes Made" section identifying the major improvements in: 1. academic voice; 2. logical structure; 3. critical analysis; 4. methodology; 5. contextualization; 6. readability. TEXT TO HUMANIZE [PASTE THE COMPLETE RESEARCH PROPOSAL HERE] 557·Aug 16 The second version should be preferred because it demonstrates qualification and analytical judgment. 5. Strengthen Contextual Relevance Do not write as though the research exists in an abstract global environment. Where the proposal concerns a specific country, institution, sector, community, or region, make the discussion appropriately contextual. For research conducted in Ethiopia, for example, consider relevant factors such as: - institutional capacity; - infrastructure; - socioeconomic conditions; - policy environment; - technological availability; - local research gaps; - cultural or linguistic considerations; - regulatory environment; - implementation realities. Do not invent statistics, laws, institutions, policies, interviews, survey results, or empirical findings. 6. Improve Logical Flow For every major section, ask: 1. What is the researcher saying? 2. Why is this point being made here? 3. What evidence supports it? 4. How does it connect to the research problem? 5. What does the reader need to understand before moving to the next point? Reorganize paragraphs when necessary to create a logical progression. Avoid paragraphs that contain several unrelated ideas. Each paragraph should generally have: A clear central idea → explanation/evidence → interpretation → connection to the research. 7. Humanize the Literature Review Do not turn the literature review into a list of authors and quotations. Instead of: «"Smith (2021) found X. Jones (2022) found Y. Ahmed (2023) found Z."» Develop synthesis: «"Previous studies have generally associated X with Y, although the evidence is not entirely consistent. Smith (2021), for example, emphasizes..., while Jones (2022) identifies.... Ahmed's (2023) findings suggest a different interpretation, particularly in contexts where.... Taken together, these studies indicate..., but they leave an important question regarding...."» The literature review should demonstrate that the researcher has understood, compared, evaluated, and synthesized previous research. 8. Humanize the Methodology The methodology must sound practical and researcher-designed rather than copied from a generic template. Explain: - why the chosen research design is appropriate; - why the study population is relevant; - why the sampling method is suitable; - how data will actually be collected; - why the selected instruments are appropriate; - how validity and reliability will be addressed; - how data will be analyzed; - what ethical issues are relevant. Avoid vague statements such as: «"The researcher will use appropriate statistical methods to analyze the data."» Instead, explain what will actually be done and why. Do not introduce sophisticated methods simply to make the proposal appear more advanced. 9. Remove Artificial Academic Inflation Do not use unnecessarily complicated vocabulary. Prefer: «"The study examines..."» over: «"The study endeavors to undertake a comprehensive investigation into..."» Prefer: «"This limitation creates a gap..."» over: «"This limitation constitutes a significant lacuna within the existing scholarly discourse..."» Academic writing should be clear, precise, and intellectually serious, not unnecessarily complicated. 10. Preserve Appropriate Imperfection Do not make every sentence perfectly symmetrical or mechanically polished. Human academic writing naturally contains: - short explanatory sentences; - longer analytical sentences; - varied transitions; - occasional repetition of an important concept for clarity; - different paragraph rhythms. The final version should be polished but not mechanically uniform. 11. Do Not Fabricate Evidence This is essential. Never: - invent references; - invent DOI numbers; - fabricate statistics; - create fictional authors; - invent quotations; - claim that a study found something when the source does not support it; - create interviews or survey results; - invent institutional policies; - manufacture research gaps. If a citation appears questionable, mark it: [VERIFY SOURCE] 523·Aug 16 HUMANIZE AND STRENGTHEN AN ACADEMIC RESEARCH PROPOSAL Role Act as a senior university research supervisor, academic editor, and subject-matter expert with extensive experience supervising undergraduate and postgraduate research proposals. Your task is to humanize, academically strengthen, and professionally refine the research proposal provided below while preserving the researcher's original ideas, arguments, evidence, objectives, methodology, and intended meaning. The final document must read like it was carefully developed by a competent human researcher who understands the research problem, the local context, and the methodological choices. Core Objective Rewrite the proposal so that it demonstrates: - genuine scholarly reasoning; - clear intellectual ownership; - natural academic writing; - logical progression of ideas; - appropriate critical thinking; - realistic research assumptions; - methodological awareness; - contextual understanding; - precise but readable academic language; - appropriate variation in sentence structure and paragraph length. Do not merely replace words with synonyms. Reconstruct sentences and paragraphs where necessary so that the reasoning flows naturally. 1. Preserve Intellectual Meaning Do not change the researcher's substantive argument merely to make the writing sound sophisticated. Preserve: - the research topic; - research problem; - research objectives; - research questions; - hypotheses, where applicable; - conceptual framework; - theoretical framework; - methodology; - study population; - sampling approach; - geographical scope; - variables; - expected contribution; - limitations; - cited evidence; - references. If something is logically weak, unrealistic, unsupported, contradictory, or unclear, identify it rather than silently inventing information. 2. Make the Writing Sound Human Avoid repetitive or formulaic academic language. Do not repeatedly use expressions such as: - "This study aims to..." - "It is important to note that..." - "Furthermore..." - "Moreover..." - "In today's rapidly changing world..." - "This research seeks to..." - "The findings will contribute significantly..." - "It is worth mentioning that..." Use such expressions only when they genuinely fit the argument. Vary: - sentence length; - paragraph structure; - transitions; - grammatical patterns; - analytical depth; - ways of introducing evidence; - ways of connecting ideas. Allow some sentences to be direct and concise and others to be more developed when the argument requires it. 3. Strengthen Researcher's Voice The proposal should sound like it belongs to a researcher who has personally examined the problem. Where appropriate, incorporate analytical expressions such as: - "A closer examination suggests..." - "This raises an important question..." - "The situation is particularly relevant in..." - "Existing studies have largely focused on..." - "However, this explanation does not fully account for..." - "The gap becomes more apparent when..." - "For the purposes of this study..." - "This study therefore focuses on..." - "The researcher considers..." Do not overuse these expressions. The voice must remain natural rather than artificially sophisticated. 4. Improve Critical Thinking Do not make the proposal merely descriptive. Where appropriate, distinguish between: What is known → What is uncertain → What previous research has established → What remains unresolved → Why the unresolved issue matters → How this study will investigate it. Identify unsupported assumptions and overly broad claims. Replace absolute statements with appropriately qualified academic language where evidence does not justify certainty. For example: Instead of: «"Technology has completely transformed Ethiopian institutions."» Prefer: «"The adoption of digital technologies has changed how many Ethiopian institutions deliver services and manage information, although the extent of this transformation varies considerably across institutions."» 365·Aug 16 በAi የተሰራ ጥናት (Academic Research) በሩቁ ይታወቃል። በመሆኑም በሰው የተጻፈ አስመስሎ ማስተካከል (humanize ማድረግ) የብዙ ሰው ፈተና ነው:: የመጀመሪያው ችግር በሰው የተጻፈ ለማስመሰል ለAi የሚሰጠው ትእዛዝ (Prompt) ነው። ምክንያቱም በትክክል ካልታዘዘ በትክክል አያስተካክልም። ሁለተኛው ችግር ደግሞ በሰው የተጻፈ ለማስመሰል የሚያስችል Ai መምረጡ ላይ ነው። በመሆኑም አንዳአንዶች በጠየቃችሁኝ መሰረት በሰው የተጻፈ ለማስመሰል መጠቀም የምትችሉት ትዕዛዝ (Prompt) ከታች ተያይዟል። ትዕዛዙን መጠቀም የምትችሉባቸው የተለያዩ አማራጮች አሉ። ለዚሁ ተብለው የተሰሩ "humanizer" ድረ-ገጾች እና Ai ዮችም አሉ። ይሁንና እነዚህ "humanizer" የሚባሉት ድረ-ገጾች እና Ai ከሚሰጡት ዝቅተኛ ጥራት ያለው ጽሑፍ ባሻገር በዋናነት የተሰሩት የAI መፈለጊያዎችን (detectors) ለማታለል ስለሆነ አስተማማኝ አይደሉም፤ ደግሞም ከሥነ-ምግባር አኳያ አጠራጣሪ ናቸው። (እንድትጠቀሙባቸው አልመክርም) ስለሆነም የተሻሉ ተብለው ከሚታወቁት አስተማማኝ Ai ዮች Claude እና ChatGPT ይጠቀሳሉ። በተለይም Claude 3.5/3.7 Sonnet ረጅም ሰነዶችን (ጥናቶችን ) ለማስተካከል በጣም ተመራጭ ነው። ChatGPT Plus / GPT-4o ደግሞ ሁለገብ እና መመሪያን አጥብቆ በመከተል ውስብስብ ጉዳዮችን በከፍተኛ ደረጃ የሚያስተካክል እንደሆነ ተመስክሮለታል። በመረጃ የተደገፈ ጽሑፍ ከምንጮች ጋር በማመሳከር ደግሞ Perplexity Pro አንደኛ ነው። ሀሰተኛ መረጃ የመፍጠርም ሆነ የማሳለፍ ዕድሉ አነስተኛ ነው። (ጥናት ለመስራትም ጥሩ አማራጭ ነው።) የዓረፍተ ነገሮች ውበት እና አጻጻፍ ማስተካከያ QuillBot ወይም Wordtune ድረ ገጾችም አማራጭ ይሆናሉ። ይሁንና ሙሉ ጥናቱን ሳይሆን በምዕራፍ - በምዕራፍ እያቀናነሱ መጫን የተሻለ ውጤት ያስገኛል። በበተጨማሪም የአካዳሚክ ጽሑፎችን በሰው የተጻፉ ለማስመሰል Paperpal እና Jenni AI መጠቀም ይቻላል። የሳይንሳዊ ጽሑፎች ቋንቋ በጥራት ይቀይራል፤ ይዘቱ የሮቦት እንዳይመስል ያደርጋል። --- የእኔ ምክር የጥናት ጽሁፉን Claude 3.7 Sonnet ወይም ChatGPT Plus ላይ#Upload አድርጎ ያያዝኩት ትዕዛዝ (humanization prompt) መጠቀም ይመረጣል። #ማሳሰቢያ :- 1. ምንም ያህል በየትኛውም Ai ሰው የጻፈው እንዲመስል ቢደረግም ከ70% በላይ ውጤታማ የሚሆነው ከላይ የተጠቀሱትን የተሻሉ አማራጮች ከተጠቀሙ በኋላ በማንዋል (በራስ) ማስተካከል ሲቻል እንደሆነ ሊሰመርበት ይገባል። 2. አንድ ጥናት መጀመሪያ በፕሮፖዛል ደረጃ Humanize መደረግ አለበት። ከታች ያለው ለዚሁ የተዘጋጀ ነው። ላለቀለት ጥናት እንዲሆን መቀየር ከፈለጋችሁ ChatGPT በመጠቀም ቀይሩት 333·Aug 16 > “The model performs well on the selected dataset.” and > “The model is applicable to Ethiopian networks.” The first can be demonstrated experimentally. The second requires additional evidence and should be treated as a transferability and feasibility question unless Ethiopian network data are available. 467·Aug 15

An open web layer over public Telegram — search, stats and channel reading right in your browser, no account, no install.

Not affiliated with Telegram FZ-LLC; all data comes from public sources.

Catalog

Top channels Categories Countries Search

Content

Stickers Emoji Gifts Themes Wallpapers

Help

Tools Wiki Glossary Blockchain Safety Premium Advertisers Advertising

© 2026 TG.ME · G.Media network· Updated 08/23/2026 · v0.2.0 · ba12f6a

Privacy Terms DMCA & complaints Report a violation

Similar channels

Awda Hasab - አውደ ሓሳብ3.8K subscribers

4-3-3 Forex Channel148.5K subscribers

Airdrop | Crypto 📈📉4.7K subscribers

Catapult Extreme9M subscribers

Finfinne Times8.9K subscribers

Trading Professors2.1K subscribers

Bighabesha News14.7K subscribers

4-3-3 Crypto278 subscribers