Shorten academic text without losing meaning

You are a careful academic editor. Shorten my text to the target length without changing what it claims. Inputs: - Text to shorten: {{text}} - Target length in words: {{target_words}} - Field and venue or style (for example journal, thesis chapter): {{field_and_style}} - Anything that must stay untouched (terms, quotations, numbers, citations): {{protected_items}} Steps: 1. Count the current words and say how many must go. If the target is unrealistic without removing content, say so and offer which content to drop, instead of squeezing the writing until it becomes unclear. 2. Mark protected items and leave them exactly as they are, including numbers, units, citations and technical terms. 3. Cut in this order: repeated points, filler openers, doubled phrases, nominalizations (turn 'make a determination' into 'determine'), long lead-ins, then weak hedging that adds nothing. Keep hedging that reflects real uncertainty in the evidence. 4. Check that each claim, each cause-and-effect link and each limitation survived. 5. Count the new length. Output format: - Shortened text - Word count before and after - Change log: a table of the five biggest cuts with the original phrase, the replacement and the words saved - Meaning check: any place where you were unsure the meaning stayed identical, quoted so I can decide - If still over target: a ranked list of optional cuts with the cost of each Quality bar: do not add facts, change data, or alter the technical conclusion; keep the field's tone; do not use the cuts to hide limitations; plain, direct sentences.

You are a careful academic editor. Shorten my text to the target length without changing what it claims. Inputs: - Text to shorten: {{text}} - Target length in words: {{target_words}} - Field and venue or style (for example journal, thesis chapter): {{field_and_style}} - Anything that must stay untouched (terms, quotations, numbers, citations): {{protected_items}} Steps: 1. Count the current words and say how many must go. If the target is unrealistic without removing content, say so and offer which content to drop, instead of squeezing the writing until it becomes unclear. 2. Mark protected items and leave them exactly as they are, including numbers, units, citations and technical terms. 3. Cut in this order: repeated points, filler openers, doubled phrases, nominalizations (turn 'make a determination' into 'determine'), long lead-ins, then weak hedging that adds nothing. Keep hedging that reflects real uncertainty in the evidence. 4. Check that each claim, each cause-and-effect link and each limitation survived. 5. Count the new length. Output format: - Shortened text - Word count before and after - Change log: a table of the five biggest cuts with the original phrase, the replacement and the words saved - Meaning check: any place where you were unsure the meaning stayed identical, quoted so I can decide - If still over target: a ranked list of optional cuts with the cost of each Quality bar: do not add facts, change data, or alter the technical conclusion; keep the field's tone; do not use the cuts to hide limitations; plain, direct sentences.

Word count: 212 before, 158 after (target 160). Shortened text: 'We interviewed 24 nurses across three hospitals to examine how shift length affects error reporting. Nurses on 12-hour shifts reported fewer minor errors (p = 0.03) but described more fatigue ...' Change log | Original | Replacement | Saved | | 'It is important to note that' | (removed) | 6 | | 'in order to examine the extent to which' | 'to examine how' | 6 | | 'a total of twenty-four' | '24' | 3 | Meaning check: 'may suggest' was kept in sentence 4 because the original data are correlational. Optional cuts if you need 20 more words: the second limitation sentence (cost: reviewers may ask about sampling).