Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

starfries t1_j87r1js wrote

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

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