Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

A_Light_Spark t1_j85cy4f wrote

Reply to comment by Trakeen in [P] Introducing arxivGPT: chrome extension that summarizes arxived research papers using chatGPT by _sshin_

Case in point:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3530294/

The title and the abstract are almost disjointed. I come across papers like regularly like maybe 15% of the time?

3

starfries t1_j87r1js wrote

I have definitely seen the kind of papers you're talking about, but this one seems fine to me? Granted I skimmed it really quickly but the title says it's a review article and the abstract reflects that.

As an aside: I really like the format I see in bio fields (and maybe others, but this is where I've encountered it) of putting the results before the detailed methodology. It doesn't always make sense for a lot of CS papers where the results are the most boring part (essentially being "it works better") but where it does it leads to a much better paper in my opinion.

3

A_Light_Spark t1_j87y33l wrote

True that it's a review, but even reviews tend to draw conclusions, thus the reason for meta analysis.
But yeah, I also prefer to see the results first, no matter how boring.

1

starfries t1_j87ypnt wrote

Maybe it's a difference in fields. I rarely see people do meta-analysis in ML so it didn't strike me as odd. Most of the reviews are just "here's what people are trying" with some attempt at categorization. But I see what you mean now, it makes sense that having a meta-analysis is important in medical fields where you want to aggregate studies.

2

Trakeen t1_j863a5t wrote

I think in this specific example it is because they didn’t do any experiments. Conclusion in the abstract is rather superfluous (do more research, ya think?)

1

A_Light_Spark t1_j8792en wrote

They did find some correlations. This type of meta analysis is not uncommon nowadays but few avoid answering the question as much as this paper.

1