Skip to content

Sessions

Session 2: Building the Human-AI Research Pipeline

A systematic review becomes easier to teach when the research pipeline is visible and testable.

Building the pipeline once teaches more than reading about it ten times.

This guide offers a hands-on workshop for designing and executing a systematic review with AI tools. The approach is cognitive-first: instead of just learning to operate tools, we learn to think with them. We engage with AI as a mirror that makes our own research processes visible, helping us deconstruct complex tasks like "finding a gap" or "building a theory" into explicit, repeatable steps.

Before you start

  • Benchmark: 01-question.md, 02-protocol.md and 03-search-log.md from Session 1, plus 06-extraction.md for the synthesis prompt
  • Templates: the IMO template for systematic reviews and the initial prompt worksheet
  • Check: inspect one account against its sources. In an approved AI mode, the Output Mirror can suggest failures to check, not replace your judgment
  • Worksheet: worksheets/session-2-prompt-experiment.md in the Student Vault
  • You produce: a synthesis prompt, a checked account, and a record of any comparison or run performed in your selected mode

By the end of this session, you'll move beyond generic AI interaction to purposeful orchestration.

Learning outcomes

By the end of this session, you'll be able to:

  • Construct a high-quality, curated literature set using discovery tools (Research Rabbit for the human eye, OpenAlex for the agent) and a management tool (Zotero)
  • Deconstruct complex research tasks (e.g., "synthesizing a framework") into explicit, step-by-step cognitive operations
  • Design and implement structured, multi-step prompts ("cognitive blueprints") that guide AI through sophisticated analytical work
  • Critically evaluate AI-generated outputs, identifying common failure modes (like "botshit" and paradigm blindness)
  • Architect a research workflow that strategically combines your domain expertise with AI capabilities

The complete research pipeline

Human-AI research pipeline
     seed papers
          |
          v
  citation discovery
          |
          v
    expanded set
          |
          v
 +--------+--------+
 | Human curation  |
 +--------+--------+
          |
          v
  reference library
          |
          v
AI-assisted analysis
          |
 +--------+--------+
 | quality control |
 +--------+--------+
          |
  issues? +----> revise method
          |            |
          +<-----------+
          |
          v
 research synthesis

Human judgment provides quality gates throughout this pipeline: AI handles scale and pattern detection, while researchers provide curation and evaluation.

Core readings: the AI toolkit

Mindset & mental models

Interpretive Orchestration

Why this matters: establishes the professional mindset for this approach. It frames the researcher as the person who designs and checks the workflow, not a passive operator.

"the void" by nostalgebraist

Why this matters: provides a mental model for context-setting. You are not simply "talking to an AI"; you are shaping a predictive system through the information you provide.

Techniques & best practices

The Prompt Report: A Systematic Survey of Prompt Engineering Techniques

Why this matters: provides a shared vocabulary and technical map for prompt engineering practice.

Risks & responsibility

Beware of Botshit: How to Manage the Epistemic Risks of Generative Chatbots

Why this matters: gives researchers a framework for identifying epistemic risk in chatbot outputs.

Supplementary readings

Quick reference guides

DAIR.AI — Prompt Engineering Guide

Why this matters: offers practical definitions and examples that complement the more formal "Prompt Report."

Anthropic — Prompt engineering best practices

Why this matters: moves from general theory to model-specific advice that you can test in your own workflow.

Foundational papers

Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models

Why this matters: provides the research basis for breaking complex problems into reasoning steps.

ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in LMs

Why this matters: explains the Reason → Act → Observe loop behind many agentic systems.

Advanced context

Andrej Karpathy — Context engineering thread

Why this matters: shifts attention from asking better questions to giving the model the information it needs to answer well.

Simon Willison — "In defense of prompt engineering"

Why this matters: explains why prompt engineering remains a useful research skill when it is treated as context design, not phrase tuning.

Session structure

Our hands-on session will follow this structure:

  1. Pipeline Overview - Understanding the complete workflow
  2. Discovery & Curation - Research Rabbit, OpenAlex, and Zotero
  3. Tool setup - Adding only the capabilities needed for the selected working mode
  4. Pipeline Practice - Working with a sample literature set

We use the scaling and scalability literature as a shared case study throughout these guides: research on how organizations grow, and on whether their structures, processes, business models, and capabilities can handle that growth. In this course shorthand:

Scaling: growth in size or scope.

Scalability: the capacity to grow without the organization breaking or losing coherence.

For a taught course, start with the papers your instructor assigns and follow the access route in the course brief. If that route is missing, ask the instructor. If you are learning independently, choose 3 to 5 papers relevant to your question, or begin with the Student Vault’s fictional practice records. The starter includes no paper pack. Expand your literature set with the discovery methods below when your question calls for it.

MCP server setup (Live demo)

For the connected-tool demonstration, we'll add the first MCP servers. Follow along only if this route fits your course brief and sharing permissions. Manual copying and saving remain valid alternatives; provided-output, human-peer, and individual-reading modes need no MCP connection.

Follow Along

  1. Open Cherry Studio → Settings → MCP Configuration
  2. Enable @cherry/filesystem only for the selected research folder
  3. Add @cherry/sequentialthinking if you want to test a structured thinking tool
  4. Test the enabled servers with material you may share
  5. Test what changes when AI has direct file access.

MCP has had less attention lately than skills and plain command-line tools, and it is still worth the hour. It is the standard interface through which plugins in Claude Code, Codex, and Cherry Studio reach anything outside the machine, and it gives an organization a seam to put controls on: which servers an agent may reach, what each server is allowed to do on its behalf, and where that is logged. The protocol enforces none of that itself; the host's approvals, the server's own authorization, and the operating system's permissions do. An agent that does everything through a shell has no such seam.

For more MCP exploration, see the MCP Explorer Guide.

Record which parts of the workflow you tested and which remain a design. A working connection does not establish that a research claim is sound.

Pre-class setup for Session 2

Understand the task before setting up tools. Bring the notes/benchmark/ files from Session 1: your question, protocol, and search log are the checks on this session's work. Arriving with worksheets and no AI tooling configured is a valid pre-class state. Your instructor's course brief determines the working mode and any tool requirements.

See the workflow first

Follow the worked research example, then try its ungraded self-check. Identify the inputs, output, and human check before installing anything. Offline, use the local self-check in the Student Vault's START-HERE.md instead.

Confirm your working mode

Read your course brief. The vault supports your own approved AI tool, provided AI output, human-peer work, or individual reading only. Ask the instructor if the assigned route is unclear. Save your own initial account before viewing another account of the same inputs.

Prepare your research vault

  • Open the Student Vault for ready-to-use worksheets, or use your existing research vault.
  • Bring the inputs assigned in your course brief, with source locators and your independent notes. For the source course, these include 3-5 seed papers.

Add and test tools only when needed

For your own AI tool, follow the Quick Start Checklist and the chosen host's guide. The Cherry Studio guide is one route. Test a response using material you may share. Add and test a Zotero or filesystem connection only if your task needs it; scope access to the selected inputs. Other working modes do not require an AI account or MCP setup.

In the connected-tool demonstration, we will:

  • Set up knowledge bases together
  • Practice Zotero MCP searches
  • Create a first agent in Cherry Studio's Agent Workspace and compare its output with the chat view
  • Export conversations to Obsidian
  • Create literature note templates
  • Practice conversation forking for different analyses

In other modes, follow the worksheet with the assigned account or your own evidence checks. Record unperformed comparisons and runs as not performed.

Check the result


Recommended Exercises

  1. Read about a review approach suited to your question. The Student Vault reading list provides methodological starting points.
  2. Develop a synthesis prompt: specify the question, evidence, method, and verification steps, starting from the IMO template for systematic reviews and the initial prompt worksheet. Use your own sample papers, or begin with the vault's fictional practice records and Session 2 worksheet.
  3. Prepare a presentation: Document notes for a 3-5 minute presentation on your synthesis.
  4. Continue expanding your personal literature library in Zotero using Research Rabbit.
  5. Optional MCP Explorer Challenge: identify a research task that needs a connector, then review a candidate's permissions before deciding whether to install and test it.

Note: the IMO paper provides a template for structuring AI thinking processes. Apply this to your own synthesis tasks.


Navigation: Previous: Session 1 • Return to Case Study Overview • Next: Session 3

cite this page

Lin, X. (2026). Session 2: Building the Human-AI Research Pipeline. Research Memex. https://research-memex.org/docs/case-studies/systematic-reviews/session-2-ai-powered-practice

@misc{docs-case-studies-systematic-reviews-session-2-ai-powered-practice-2026,
  author = {Xule Lin},
  title = {Session 2: Building the Human-AI Research Pipeline},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://research-memex.org/docs/case-studies/systematic-reviews/session-2-ai-powered-practice}},
  note = {ORCID: 0000-0001-7885-4194}
}

one renderingthe source remains