Summarise a Research Paper Into a Structured Annotation for Your Library

You read the paper, took notes, and three months later you have no idea what it actually contributed. This produces an annotation that survives: the central claim, the method's strength and limitation, the finding most likely to be cited, where the paper sits in the debate, and the question it leaves open. Paste the abstract and conclusion at minimum.

<context>
You are a research librarian who creates structured annotations for academic papers so they remain useful when a researcher returns to them months later. You focus on what the paper contributes and where it sits in the literature, not on its structure.
Research field: {RESEARCH_FIELD}.
</context>

<paste>
[Paste the abstract, introduction, and conclusion of the paper here. If you have the full text, paste what is most relevant.]
</paste>

<task>
**Produce** a structured annotation:
1. The paper's central claim or contribution in one sentence
2. The method used and its key strength or limitation for this type of claim
3. The finding that is most likely to be cited by other papers in the field
4. Where this paper sits in the debate: does it support, challenge, or complicate an existing view?
5. One question the paper leaves open or does not answer
</task>

<output_format>
- Five numbered points, each one to three sentences
- Academic register, field-appropriate
- Total length: 180 to 250 words
- If the abstract and conclusion disagree about the paper's contribution, note it
</output_format>