Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Use when defending the research design of an Annals of the American Association of Geographers manuscript — spatial/quantitative analysis and GIScience, remote-sensing and physical-environmental methods, qualitative human-geography inference, or nature-society mixed methods. The Annals judges each tradition on its own terms. Strengthens the design; it does not write code.
| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-03 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 21% | 0% |
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -1% | 0% |
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -9% | 0% |
| case-04 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 10% | 0% |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 10% | 0% |
The Annals spans four areas and accepts many methodologies, but is demanding about each. The design must credibly connect the geographic argument (aaag-theory-building) to the evidence, and must take space and scale seriously — spatial dependence, the MAUP, projection, and sampling are design issues, not afterthoughts. This skill is mode-aware: pick the section that matches your work.
aaag-literature-positioningGWR/MGWR where heterogeneity is the point); state how the MAUP / scale could change conclusions.
measurements; spatial sampling and its biases.
diagnostics; for prediction, use spatially-aware cross-validation (blocked/spatial CV), not random folds.
truth; quantify accuracy (confusion matrix, kappa/F1, RMSE) with an independent validation sample.
uncertainty budget end to end.
is a case of. Convenience is not a rationale.
archives, discourse/textual analysis); state how interpretations were checked.
(see aaag-transparency-and-data), including consent and geoprivacy.
(e.g., land-change observation + livelihood interviews), and how convergence/divergence is handled.
For the single strongest rival explanation, write: "If the rival held rather than my argument, the [spatial pattern / measurements / accounts] would look like ___; instead they look like ___." If the design cannot distinguish them — including ruling out a scale or spatial-autocorrelation artifact — it does not yet identify the contribution.
| Likely objection | Area | The fix | |------------------|------|---------| | "Your OLS ignores spatial autocorrelation." | Methods/Human | Test residual Moran's I; move to a spatial model and report diagnostics. | | "This is a unit-of-analysis artifact (MAUP)." | Methods/Nature-Society | Re-run across areal units/bandwidths; show stability or scope the claim by scale. | | "Random CV overstates accuracy on spatial data." | Methods/RS | Use blocked/spatial CV; report the spatial structure of error. | | "No independent validation of the classification." | RS/Physical | Add a held-out reference sample + area-adjusted accuracy. | | "Convenience case; what is it a case of?" | Human/Nature-Society | State the case-selection logic and the population it represents. | | "Whose voice / positionality?" | Human | Make reflexivity and interpretation-checking explicit. |
in the design, not patched in robustness.
needs case logic, reflexivity, and disconfirmation criteria instead.
【Mode】spatial-quant / remote-sensing-physical / qualitative / mixed
【Estimand or claim】what is identified/shown
【Spatial integrity】dependence / MAUP-scale / projection / validation handled? [Y/N]
【Rival ruled out】the adjudication sentence (incl. scale/spatial-artifact)
【Robustness】planned checks
【Next】aaag-data-analysis../../resources/external_tools.md — spatial-analysis, GIS, remote-sensing, and CAQDAS tooling by area../../resources/official-source-map.md — areas, scope, and review modelOther measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.