From gec-skills
Builds the conceptual or analytical framework for a Global Environmental Change (GEC) manuscript, connecting concepts like vulnerability, governance, and socio-ecological systems to empirical analysis.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/gec-skills:gec-conceptual-frameworkThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
GEC publishes work that is **theoretically and empirically rigorous**. The conceptual framework is what
GEC publishes work that is theoretically and empirically rigorous. The conceptual framework is what makes a human-dimensions paper more than a description: it names the concepts, specifies how they relate, and dictates what evidence would confirm or disconfirm the argument. This is the heart of a GEC paper — treat it as a load-bearing contribution, not boilerplate.
gec-literature-positioning is what it is built to close.gec-research-design.| Tradition | Core lens | Watch for |
|---|---|---|
| Vulnerability / risk | hazard × exposure × vulnerability; entitlements; livelihoods | conflating risk with hazard; ignoring social differentiation |
| Socio-ecological systems | IAD / SES (Ostrom); feedbacks; commons | box-ticking the framework without using it |
| Sustainability transitions | multi-level perspective; niches/regimes/landscape | treating transitions as automatic, apolitical |
| Governance | polycentric / adaptive / multi-level governance | describing institutions without explaining outcomes |
| Political ecology | power, scale, access, distribution | narrative with no analytic structure |
These are the framework objections GEC referees write most often, paired with the move that converts them. The signature GEC failure is a framework borrowed from natural science with the human-dimensions content thinned to a label.
| Referee wording you will see | What it diagnoses | The fix that lands at GEC |
|---|---|---|
| "The framework is invoked but does no analytic work" | A decorative citation, not a load-bearing lens | Re-derive each hypothesis from a named link in the framework; show one result the framework predicted and a rival did not |
| "Human dimensions are thin — this reads as natural science with a social gloss" | Coupled system asserted, only the biophysical half theorised | Give actors, institutions, and distributional stakes equal conceptual weight to the hazard or biophysical driver |
| "Concepts are used loosely (resilience, vulnerability)" | Contested terms left undefined | Commit to one definition with a citation, state what it excludes, and use it identically throughout |
| "The framework is not connected to the evidence" | No bridge from concept to observable | Add an explicit row mapping each concept to its measure and the disconfirming observation |
| "Integration is stapled, not genuine" | Two literatures cited side by side | Name the single constitutive link where the domain and social-science concepts meet on your question |
A team frames a mixed-methods study of climate adaptation and social vulnerability in a coastal delta region. Numbers below are illustrative.
【Core concepts】defined (with the definition chosen)
【Relationships / mechanism】the links the framework asserts
【Interdisciplinary link】the domain ↔ social-science connection
【Evidence implied】what would confirm / disconfirm it
【Diagram?】yes/no (recommended for complex frameworks)
【Next】gec-research-design
../../resources/external_tools.md — conceptual frameworks and systems-mapping tools../../resources/official-source-map.md — GEC emphasis on theoretical rigornpx claudepluginhub brycewang-stanford/awesome-journal-skills --plugin gec-skillsPositions interdisciplinary GEC manuscripts across social science, governance, and domain literatures. Shapes framing and citation strategy for environmental-change journals.
Builds load-bearing conceptual or analytical frameworks for World Development manuscripts. Use when theory is decorative or mechanism is asserted but not theorized.
Creates a conceptual organizing framework (spine) for Progress in Human Geography reviews. Use when the review lacks an argument and reads as annotated bibliography.