@danielborek Do you suggest that main the Beaver output shows \cite{key} instead of [1] as citations? What about this instead: "Copy as Latex" option in addition to copy as markdown (which is the default). That would leave the UI unchanged (no \cite{key} in the visible output) but give you latex formatted output.
I was not suggesting that Beaver’s visible output should replace numeric citations with \cite{key}.
What I meant is indeed a copy/export preference: when a user copies Beaver output, citations could optionally be converted to a citekey-based format using the Zotero citekey already stored in metadata. That could support different targets, for example LaTeX (\cite{key}) or Pandoc/Markdown ([@key] / @key).
This is not an essential feature for me, and I would still verify citations manually, but it could be useful for workflows such as pasting Beaver output into Obsidian Markdown notes or LaTeX documents.
UI can stay unchanged, while the copied output uses a user-selected citation format.
BTW I created a sort of metaprompt template for Beaver that might be useful as inspiration for someone
``` Analyze this paper in relation to my project on [YOUR TOPIC].
## My project in brief
The project has [N] themes: (1) [Theme 1 — be specific about scope and methods] (2) [Theme 2] (3) [Theme 3] (4) [Theme 4]
A cross-cutting argument: [your overarching methodological or theoretical stance — e.g., what you're cautious about, what framing you push back against].
## What to produce
**Verdict** (3–5 sentences). Start with a brief overview of what the paper does and what it finds — enough that I can recall the paper from this paragraph alone. Then state which project theme(s) it connects to, the strength of the connection (central, supporting, background), and its main value for my project.
**What it gives me.** In one integrated passage (not split by theory/methods/findings), explain what is concretely useful: key findings, methodological points, theoretical arguments, or evidence I can cite. For each point, say whether it supports, extends, complicates, or challenges my project arguments. Include page or section references. Keep this tight — no repeating the same point under multiple labels.
**Limits and mismatches.** One paragraph identifying important gaps between this paper and my project: [list the kinds of mismatches that matter in your field — e.g., modality, species, age group, task vs rest, different definitions, overly strong interpretation], or anything else that limits how directly I can use it.
**Where to cite.** Suggest 1–3 specific places in my project where I would use this paper. Be concrete — name the argument or section, not just a theme label.
**Summary table** with columns: Theme | Contribution | Relevance (central / supporting / background) | Suggested use | Main caution.
## Rules - Be precise and critical. Do not overstate similarity to my work. - Do not repeat the same point across sections. Each section should add something new. - Assume the paper has at least some connection to my project — focus on characterising the type and strength of that connection. - Think beyond the paper's stated topic. Look for connections to specific methodological concerns, formal arguments, or empirical patterns in my project that the paper may illuminate indirectly — for example, [list 3–5 examples of indirect connections that matter for your work]. - Include page/section references for specific claims. - Save as a Zotero note attached to the parent item. ```
Upgrade Storage
What I meant is indeed a copy/export preference: when a user copies Beaver output, citations could optionally be converted to a citekey-based format using the Zotero citekey already stored in metadata. That could support different targets, for example LaTeX (\cite{key}) or Pandoc/Markdown ([@key] / @key).
This is not an essential feature for me, and I would still verify citations manually, but it could be useful for workflows such as pasting Beaver output into Obsidian Markdown notes or LaTeX documents.
UI can stay unchanged, while the copied output uses a user-selected citation format.
```
Analyze this paper in relation to my project on [YOUR TOPIC].
## My project in brief
The project has [N] themes:
(1) [Theme 1 — be specific about scope and methods]
(2) [Theme 2]
(3) [Theme 3]
(4) [Theme 4]
A cross-cutting argument: [your overarching methodological or theoretical stance — e.g., what you're cautious about, what framing you push back against].
## What to produce
**Verdict** (3–5 sentences). Start with a brief overview of what the paper does and what it finds — enough that I can recall the paper from this paragraph alone. Then state which project theme(s) it connects to, the strength of the connection (central, supporting, background), and its main value for my project.
**What it gives me.** In one integrated passage (not split by theory/methods/findings), explain what is concretely useful: key findings, methodological points, theoretical arguments, or evidence I can cite. For each point, say whether it supports, extends, complicates, or challenges my project arguments. Include page or section references. Keep this tight — no repeating the same point under multiple labels.
**Limits and mismatches.** One paragraph identifying important gaps between this paper and my project: [list the kinds of mismatches that matter in your field — e.g., modality, species, age group, task vs rest, different definitions, overly strong interpretation], or anything else that limits how directly I can use it.
**Where to cite.** Suggest 1–3 specific places in my project where I would use this paper. Be concrete — name the argument or section, not just a theme label.
**Summary table** with columns: Theme | Contribution | Relevance (central / supporting / background) | Suggested use | Main caution.
## Rules
- Be precise and critical. Do not overstate similarity to my work.
- Do not repeat the same point across sections. Each section should add something new.
- Assume the paper has at least some connection to my project — focus on characterising the type and strength of that connection.
- Think beyond the paper's stated topic. Look for connections to specific methodological concerns, formal arguments, or empirical patterns in my project that the paper may illuminate indirectly — for example, [list 3–5 examples of indirect connections that matter for your work].
- Include page/section references for specific claims.
- Save as a Zotero note attached to the parent item.
```