Scientists- in what % of papers you read does the main body of the paper fail to support the assertions made in the title or abstract?
Probably <10% in ML. I think the bigger problem is that assertions made in the abstract are fuzzy. It’s not difficult to support something when experimental protocols are full of confounding variables.
-
-
if the paper's title or abstract says X and after reading it you are like "I don't think they made a good case for X", this goes into the "main text fails to support the abstract or the title" category... % in this case?
-
so e.g. if the abstract is technically in accordance with what they did in the paper but you think the paper is shitty, that's also a failure to support the title/abstract
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.