# style analysis prompt #prompting ## Vocabulary • Lexical density (open-class words) ≈ 56 % • Dominant word classes: nouns 38 % > verbs 13 % > adjectives 11 % > adverbs 6 % • Recurring collocations: “in this paper”, “generative AI”, “in the sense”, “on the other hand”, “we argue that” • Common affixes: prefixes meta-, inter-, auto-, non-; suffixes ‑tion, ‑ity, ‑ness, ‑ism, ‑ment • Preferred synonyms: “argue” > “contend”; “plausible” > “likely”; “illustrate” > “demonstrate” ## Morphology and inflection • Tense spread: present 62 %, past 22 %, present perfect 9 %, other 7 % • Voice: active 78 %, passive 22 %; progressive aspect < 4 % • Modal verbs per 1 000 words: can 7,8; must 3,1; may 2,9; should 2,2; might 1,7; could 1,5 • Pronouns: inclusive “we” 5,2‰; third-person pronouns 4,6‰; impersonal “one” 0‰ ## Syntax • Mean sentence length = 29,4 words (range 8–67) • Simple : compound : complex ≈ 15 % : 30 % : 55 % • Frequent fronted adjuncts: “In this section, we …” (4,8‰) • Common subordinators: because, although, while, since, if, when • Parenthetical punctuation per 1 000 words: commas 54,0; em-dashes 3,2; semicolons 2,9; colons 3,4 ## Punctuation • Relative counts /1 000 words: , 54; . 35; ; 3; : 3; — 2; … 0,3; “ ” 4; ‘ ’ 2; ( ) 6 • Single space after all marks; no space before • Ellipsis restricted to quotations; em-dash marks asides (“—not as an agent—”) ## Cohesion devices • Logical connectives /1 000 words: however 4,1; therefore 2,7; thus 3,3; nevertheless 1,0; indeed 1,2 • Deictic chains with “this/that/such” frequent (“[[This approach]]…”) • Enumerators: “first”, “second”, “third”, “finally” structure arguments ## Paragraph architecture • Average paragraph length = 5,8 sentences (~160 words) • Typical openings: definition or claim 64 %; citation 18 %; rhetorical question 4 % • Closings: summary 41 %; transition 37 %; invitation 6 % ## Tone and register • Formality = 4,2 /5 (academic) • Contractions 0,1‰ (“doesn’t”) • Hedging 11,9‰ (seems, appears, might, arguably) — e.g. “might still deserve some degree of ‘credit’” • Boosters 3,6‰ (clearly, certainly, indeed) — e.g. “Indeed, a better understanding…” • Evaluative adjectives moderate (“unsatisfactory”, “plausible”, “problematic”) • Epistemic : deontic modal ratio ≈ 3 : 1 • Stance: inclusive “we”; first-person singular absent; impersonal passives common • Reader engagement: sparse rhetorical questions (“Should we not say the same thing…?”) ~1/800 w. • Intensifiers: very 1,5‰; quite 0,9‰; rather 0,6‰; somewhat 0,5‰ • Emotional valence neutral; occasional “promising” / “problematic” • Jargon density ≈ 9 % (ontology, recalcitrance, [[machina naturans]]) • Humour/irony: negligible • Idioms/clichés rare (“on the other hand”, “prima facie”) 2,3‰ • Taboo/colloquial language absent • Rhythm: hypotaxis dominant; parataxis for emphasis in introductions • Objectivity : subjectivity ≈ 70 % factual / 30 % evaluative • Politeness: soft directives (“let us consider”); gratitude confined to acknowledgements ## Capitalisation and numbering • Sentence-initial capitals observed; proper nouns standard • Heading style: sentence-case within articles; Title-case in [[main title]] • Numbers: words for ≤ ten, digits for 11 +; years unspaced; no thousands separator • Citation style: author–year parenthetical (“Helliwell 2023”) ## Other recurrent features • Parentheses for clarification and citations 6,9‰ • Footnotes rare; endnotes in proofs only • Imperatives occasional in thought experiments (“Consider the following…”) • Idiosyncrasies: em-dash insertions, and the formula “in relation to” as subsection links # style analysis prompt #prompting ## Vocabulary • Lexical density (open-class words) ≈ 56 % • Dominant word classes: nouns 38 % > verbs 13 % > adjectives 11 % > adverbs 6 % • Recurring collocations: “in this paper”, “generative AI”, “in the sense”, “on the other hand”, “we argue that” • Common affixes: prefixes meta-, inter-, auto-, non-; suffixes ‑tion, ‑ity, ‑ness, ‑ism, ‑ment • Preferred synonyms: “argue” > “contend”; “plausible” > “likely”; “illustrate” > “demonstrate” ## Morphology and inflection • Tense spread: present 62 %, past 22 %, present perfect 9 %, other 7 % • Voice: active 78 %, passive 22 %; progressive aspect < 4 % • Modal verbs per 1 000 words: can 7,8; must 3,1; may 2,9; should 2,2; might 1,7; could 1,5 • Pronouns: inclusive “we” 5,2‰; third-person pronouns 4,6‰; impersonal “one” 0‰ ## Syntax • Mean sentence length = 29,4 words (range 8–67) • Simple : compound : complex ≈ 15 % : 30 % : 55 % • Frequent fronted adjuncts: “In this section, we …” (4,8‰) • Common subordinators: because, although, while, since, if, when • Parenthetical punctuation per 1 000 words: commas 54,0; em-dashes 3,2; semicolons 2,9; colons 3,4 ## Punctuation • Relative counts /1 000 words: , 54; . 35; ; 3; : 3; — 2; … 0,3; “ ” 4; ‘ ’ 2; ( ) 6 • Single space after all marks; no space before • Ellipsis restricted to quotations; em-dash marks asides (“—not as an agent—”) ## Cohesion devices • Logical connectives /1 000 words: however 4,1; therefore 2,7; thus 3,3; nevertheless 1,0; indeed 1,2 • Deictic chains with “this/that/such” frequent (“[[This approach]]…”) • Enumerators: “first”, “second”, “third”, “finally” structure arguments ## Paragraph architecture • Average paragraph length = 5,8 sentences (~160 words) • Typical openings: definition or claim 64 %; citation 18 %; rhetorical question 4 % • Closings: summary 41 %; transition 37 %; invitation 6 % ## Tone and register • Formality = 4,2 /5 (academic) • Contractions 0,1‰ (“doesn’t”) • Hedging 11,9‰ (seems, appears, might, arguably) — e.g. “might still deserve some degree of ‘credit’” • Boosters 3,6‰ (clearly, certainly, indeed) — e.g. “Indeed, a better understanding…” • Evaluative adjectives moderate (“unsatisfactory”, “plausible”, “problematic”) • Epistemic : deontic modal ratio ≈ 3 : 1 • Stance: inclusive “we”; first-person singular absent; impersonal passives common • Reader engagement: sparse rhetorical questions (“Should we not say the same thing…?”) ~1/800 w. • Intensifiers: very 1,5‰; quite 0,9‰; rather 0,6‰; somewhat 0,5‰ • Emotional valence neutral; occasional “promising” / “problematic” • Jargon density ≈ 9 % (ontology, recalcitrance, [[machina naturans]]) • Humour/irony: negligible • Idioms/clichés rare (“on the other hand”, “prima facie”) 2,3‰ • Taboo/colloquial language absent • Rhythm: hypotaxis dominant; parataxis for emphasis in introductions • Objectivity : subjectivity ≈ 70 % factual / 30 % evaluative • Politeness: soft directives (“let us consider”); gratitude confined to acknowledgements ## Capitalisation and numbering • Sentence-initial capitals observed; proper nouns standard • Heading style: sentence-case within articles; Title-case in [[main title]] • Numbers: words for ≤ ten, digits for 11 +; years unspaced; no thousands separator • Citation style: author–year parenthetical (“Helliwell 2023”) ## Other recurrent features • Parentheses for clarification and citations 6,9‰ • Footnotes rare; endnotes in proofs only • Imperatives occasional in thought experiments (“Consider the following…”) • Idiosyncrasies: em-dash insertions, and the formula “in relation to” as subsection links # style analysis prompt #prompting ## Vocabulary • Lexical density (open-class words) ≈ 56 % • Dominant word classes: nouns 38 % > verbs 13 % > adjectives 11 % > adverbs 6 % • Recurring collocations: “in this paper”, “generative AI”, “in the sense”, “on the other hand”, “we argue that” • Common affixes: prefixes meta-, inter-, auto-, non-; suffixes ‑tion, ‑ity, ‑ness, ‑ism, ‑ment • Preferred synonyms: “argue” > “contend”; “plausible” > “likely”; “illustrate” > “demonstrate” ## Morphology and inflection • Tense spread: present 62 %, past 22 %, present perfect 9 %, other 7 % • Voice: active 78 %, passive 22 %; progressive aspect < 4 % • Modal verbs per 1 000 words: can 7,8; must 3,1; may 2,9; should 2,2; might 1,7; could 1,5 • Pronouns: inclusive “we” 5,2‰; third-person pronouns 4,6‰; impersonal “one” 0‰ ## Syntax • Mean sentence length = 29,4 words (range 8–67) • Simple : compound : complex ≈ 15 % : 30 % : 55 % • Frequent fronted adjuncts: “In this section, we …” (4,8‰) • Common subordinators: because, although, while, since, if, when • Parenthetical punctuation per 1 000 words: commas 54,0; em-dashes 3,2; semicolons 2,9; colons 3,4 ## Punctuation • Relative counts /1 000 words: , 54; . 35; ; 3; : 3; — 2; … 0,3; “ ” 4; ‘ ’ 2; ( ) 6 • Single space after all marks; no space before • Ellipsis restricted to quotations; em-dash marks asides (“—not as an agent—”) ## Cohesion devices • Logical connectives /1 000 words: however 4,1; therefore 2,7; thus 3,3; nevertheless 1,0; indeed 1,2 • Deictic chains with “this/that/such” frequent (“[[This approach]]…”) • Enumerators: “first”, “second”, “third”, “finally” structure arguments ## Paragraph architecture • Average paragraph length = 5,8 sentences (~160 words) • Typical openings: definition or claim 64 %; citation 18 %; rhetorical question 4 % • Closings: summary 41 %; transition 37 %; invitation 6 % ## Tone and register • Formality = 4,2 /5 (academic) • Contractions 0,1‰ (“doesn’t”) • Hedging 11,9‰ (seems, appears, might, arguably) — e.g. “might still deserve some degree of ‘credit’” • Boosters 3,6‰ (clearly, certainly, indeed) — e.g. “Indeed, a better understanding…” • Evaluative adjectives moderate (“unsatisfactory”, “plausible”, “problematic”) • Epistemic : deontic modal ratio ≈ 3 : 1 • Stance: inclusive “we”; first-person singular absent; impersonal passives common • Reader engagement: sparse rhetorical questions (“Should we not say the same thing…?”) ~1/800 w. • Intensifiers: very 1,5‰; quite 0,9‰; rather 0,6‰; somewhat 0,5‰ • Emotional valence neutral; occasional “promising” / “problematic” • Jargon density ≈ 9 % (ontology, recalcitrance, [[machina naturans]]) • Humour/irony: negligible • Idioms/clichés rare (“on the other hand”, “prima facie”) 2,3‰ • Taboo/colloquial language absent • Rhythm: hypotaxis dominant; parataxis for emphasis in introductions • Objectivity : subjectivity ≈ 70 % factual / 30 % evaluative • Politeness: soft directives (“let us consider”); gratitude confined to acknowledgements ## Capitalisation and numbering • Sentence-initial capitals observed; proper nouns standard • Heading style: sentence-case within articles; Title-case in [[main title]] • Numbers: words for ≤ ten, digits for 11 +; years unspaced; no thousands separator • Citation style: author–year parenthetical (“Helliwell 2023”) ## Other recurrent features • Parentheses for clarification and citations 6,9‰ • Footnotes rare; endnotes in proofs only • Imperatives occasional in thought experiments (“Consider the following…”) • Idiosyncrasies: em-dash insertions, and the formula “in relation to” as subsection links