{'type': 'text', 'content': '<h2>Stage 1: Foundation Analysis Output — Title, Abstract, Keywords</h2><h3>Proposed Title</h3><p><strong>Accountable Extempore Speaking and Cognitive Development in Emerging Adults: A Mixed-Methods Trial and Integration Plan</strong></p>'}
{'type': 'text', 'content': '<h3>Abstract</h3><p><strong>Background:</strong> Developing higher-order thinking in youth requires instructional approaches that foster metacognition, cognitive flexibility, and evidence-based reasoning. Accountable extempore speaking—structured, time-bound speaking with explicit verification standards—may produce measurable cognitive gains beyond traditional reading–writing activities.</p><p><strong>Objective:</strong> To evaluate whether accountable extempore speaking improves critical thinking, cognitive flexibility, and higher-order application relative to a content-matched control; and to explain change processes via qualitative inquiry and mixed-methods integration.</p><p><strong>Methods:</strong> A randomized, parallel-group design with 312 participants (ages 18–20) compares a 12-week accountable speaking intervention to a structured reading–writing control. Pre/post measures include the Watson–Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal (WGCTA), Cognitive Flexibility Scale (CFS), and a Bloom’s Taxonomy scenario test. Primary analyses apply ANCOVA (post-test as DV, pre-test as covariate), with effect sizes and assumption checks. Qualitative data (n=48 interviews, session videos, weekly reflections) undergo thematic and video coding (target κ ≥ 0.80), aligned to COREQ standards. Joint displays link quantitative gains with experiential mechanisms (e.g., metacognitive language, transfer). Reporting follows APA 7, CONSORT, and mixed-methods guidelines.</p><p><strong>Anticipated Contributions:</strong> The study provides a rigorously powered test of accountable speaking effects across multiple cognitive domains, explains mechanisms of change through triangulated qualitative evidence, and delivers replicable visualization, accessibility, and reporting standards. Findings are expected to inform pedagogy, assessment design, and theory on accountable discourse as a catalyst for cognitive development.</p><p><strong>Status:</strong> Pre-data collection protocol; results will be reported in subsequent stages.</p>'}
{'type': 'text', 'content': '<h3>Keywords</h3><p>accountable speaking; extemporaneous speaking; critical thinking; cognitive flexibility; mixed methods; ANCOVA; thematic analysis</p>'}
{'type': 'text', 'content': '<h2>Comprehensive Content Integration Summary</h2><ul><li><strong>Design:</strong> Randomized, mixed-methods trial with pre/post measures (WGCTA, CFS, Bloom’s scenarios), n=312 (156 per group), 12-week intervention.</li><li><strong>Primary Analyses:</strong> Within-group t-tests, between-group ANCOVA with assumption checks; effect sizes and confidence intervals reported; Bonferroni control for three primary outcomes (α=0.0167).</li><li><strong>Qualitative:</strong> Semi-structured interviews (n=48), video coding of speaking segments, weekly reflections; thematic analysis (Braun &amp; Clarke), inter-coder reliability target κ ≥ 0.80.</li><li><strong>Integration:</strong> Joint displays connecting quantitative gains to thematic mechanisms (metacognition, evidence standards, transfer), convergence/divergence logic and meta-inferences.</li><li><strong>Rigor &amp; Reporting:</strong> APA 7 (stats), CONSORT (flow), COREQ (qualitative), accessibility standards (color-safe palettes, alt text, data tables); SPSS and NVivo as primary software, R as backup.</li><li><strong>Visualization Plan:</strong> Demographics (Table 1), pre/post descriptives (Table 2), ANCOVA (Table 3), theme frequencies with quotes (Table 4), integration matrix (Table 5), CONSORT (Figure 1), pre-post error bars (Figure 2), effect sizes (Figure 3), theme prevalence (Figure 4).</li><li><strong>Contingencies:</strong> Bootstrap/robust stats, multiple imputation, theoretical sampling, extended coder training.</li></ul>'}
{'type': 'text', 'content': '<h2>Key Themes and Findings Catalog (Planned)</h2><h3>Quantitative Outcomes</h3><ul><li>Primary endpoints: WGCTA, CFS, Bloom’s scenario scores (post-test adjusted via ANCOVA).</li><li>Effect sizes: Cohen’s d and partial η² with CIs; sensitivity checks (Welch, non-parametric) if assumptions violated.</li></ul><h3>Qualitative Outcomes</h3><ul><li>Major themes (anticipated): Cognitive processing changes; metacognitive awareness; accountability effects; transfer experiences; confidence/anxiety dynamics.</li><li>Video dimensions: Logical structure, evidence integration, real-time synthesis, self-correction (30-second units).</li></ul><h3>Integration Outcomes</h3><ul><li>Convergence patterns: High-gain profiles expected to co-occur with rich metacognitive language and transfer narratives.</li><li>Divergence examination: Low-gain cases analyzed for process barriers (e.g., anxiety, topic difficulty).</li></ul><h3>Implementation &amp; Ethics</h3><ul><li>Data security, anonymization, IRB adherence, blinded post-testing, manipulation checks, attrition management.</li></ul>'}
{'type': 'text', 'content': '<h2>Innovative Component: Authorship Pattern Analysis (Multi-layered Cognitive Signature Profiling)</h2><p><strong>Concept:</strong> A classifier that profiles authorship micro-patterns across multi-authored research—stylistic markers, methodological preferences (e.g., pre/post ANCOVA plus thematic integration), reporting standards (APA 7, COREQ), and cognitive constructs (metacognition, transfer)—to infer expertise nodes and collaboration clusters.</p><p><strong>Data &amp; Features:</strong> Prior publications’ text (stylo-metrics, section-level n-grams), method sequences, citation schemas, figure/table usage patterns, typical effect-size reporting, and integration display archetypes.</p><p><strong>Use Cases:</strong> Detect recurring co-author themes; map diffused expertise (video coders, statisticians); integrity checks; interdisciplinary team formation via skill-profile matching.</p><p><strong>Safeguards:</strong> Consent for authorship analytics, de-identification, bias audits, human-in-the-loop validation, and strict separation from authorship adjudication decisions.</p>'}
{'type': 'chart', 'chartType': 'Bar', 'data': {'labels': ['Intervention (Participants)', 'Control (Participants)', 'Interviews (Qual Subsample)'], 'datasets': [{'label': 'Planned Sample Size', 'data': [156, 156, 48], 'backgroundColor': ['rgba(46, 134, 171, 0.7)', 'rgba(162, 59, 114, 0.7)', 'rgba(90, 186, 99, 0.7)'], 'borderColor': ['rgb(46, 134, 171)', 'rgb(162, 59, 114)', 'rgb(90, 186, 99)'], 'borderWidth': 1}]}}
{'type': 'text', 'content': '<h2>Display Plan Snapshot (for Later Stages)</h2><ul><li><strong>Tables:</strong> Demographics; Pre/Post descriptives; ANCOVA; Qual themes + quotes; Integration matrix.</li><li><strong>Figures:</strong> CONSORT flow; Pre–post error bars by measure/group; Effect sizes with CIs; Theme frequency bars/treemap.</li><li><strong>Accessibility:</strong> Colorblind-safe palettes, alt text, readable fonts, CSVs for underlying data, PNG+SVG outputs.</li></ul>'}
{'type': 'text', 'content': '<h2>Reference Mapping for Consistent Citation (Planned)</h2><ul><li><strong>Thematic Analysis:</strong> Braun, V., &amp; Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology.</li><li><strong>CONSORT:</strong> Schulz, Altman, &amp; Moher (2010). CONSORT 2010 Statement.</li><li><strong>COREQ:</strong> Tong, Sainsbury, &amp; Craig (2007). COREQ checklist.</li><li><strong>Effect Size/Power:</strong> Faul et al. (G*Power); APA 7th reporting standards.</li><li><strong>Cognitive Interventions:</strong> Bellon (2000) on debate; Billings &amp; Roberts (2014) on Socratic seminars; Chi et al. (1994) on self-explanation; Perkins &amp; Salomon on transfer.</li><li><strong>Mixed-Methods Integration:</strong> Good et al. (2021) mixed-methods reporting guidance.</li><li><strong>Instruments/Software:</strong> Pearson TalentLens (WGCTA); IBM SPSS Statistics (v28); NVivo 12; R/ggplot2.</li></ul><p><em>Note:</em> Full bibliographic details and DOIs to be verified and standardized in the manuscript reference list.</p>'}
{'type': 'text', 'content': '<h2>Next Steps</h2><ol><li>Finalize SPSS/R syntax templates (assumption checks, ANCOVA, effect sizes, MI for missing data).</li><li>Complete qualitative codebook pilot with 5 interviews and reliability calibration.</li><li>Build joint display templates aligning measures (WGCTA, CFS, Bloom’s) with thematic indicators.</li><li>Pre-register analysis and visualization plan; establish data dictionaries and alt text templates.</li></ol>'}
{'type': 'image', 'image_url': 'https://via.placeholder.com/640x480.png?text=Mixed-Methods+Study+Visualization'}