Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Trakeen t1_j841ust wrote

I really like chatgpt but i typically find the abstract good enough to summarize the paper

255

Iunaml t1_j84cwot wrote

Good enough to know if I have to read it or not. Still ends up disappointed half of the time because an abstract is meant is often a bit clickbaity.

62

endless_sea_of_stars t1_j858dvn wrote

> abstract is meant is often a bit clickbaity.

Had a vision of a nightmare future where papers are written in click bait fashion.

Top Ten Shocking Properties of Positive Solutions of Higher Order Differential Equations and Their Astounding Applications in Oscillation Theory. You won't believe number 7!

78

ktpr t1_j859ruq wrote

Or, click here to auto-cite this paper to learn more about number 14!

15

Iunaml t1_j85g996 wrote

Cite one more paper to get 0.15% more chance of being accepted!

11

Mobile-Bird-6908 t1_j866b6d wrote

Let's start an academic journal named "Trashademia", where we only accept articles with click bait titles. If your research is otherwise not worthy of a publication, we will accept it anyways as long as the content is presented with plenty of humour and trash talk.

11

muntoo t1_j881naw wrote

Wouldn't hurt if the average paper were written more engagingly than it is now.

Not like

> "This mind-numbing discovery broke the university intranet and gave our Doc Brown lookalike professor a heart attack!",

but something better than

> "The quasi-entropic property of a Clifford algebraic structure has been determined by [7] to induce permutations upon information-theoretic monoidal categories, which are commonly known to be derived from the generalized relaxation of the Curry-Howard-Lambek formulation (Equation 112358) under Noetherian ideal invariance [41], as shown in Figure (lol jk only unsophisticated normies doth require the non-abstract nonsense known outside of Shakespearean tragedies as a figure), and therefore, this provides support for the main result of our paper: that the successor of the Mesopotamian invention 1 = succ(0) in summation with itself is equal to the successor of the successor of the aforementioned invention, which is widely believed to be the first and only even prime, and additionally happens to be a popular choice of base for logarithms in information theory, and furthermore provides a fundamental basis for classical logic which is based on the concept of truth and falsehood, ergo a number of logical states which can be described as the least number of branches under which bifurcation occurs [17,29,31-91]."

> (Dr. Obvious et al. "1 + 1 is usually 2." vixra [eprint]. 2011.)

9

chillaxinbball t1_j84pek8 wrote

Yes, but what if you need to skim through dozens of papers to find what you need?

9

radarsat1 t1_j84uw0n wrote

Using ChatGPT to summarize multiple papers and essentially do a lit survey for you is actually a great idea.

23

Trakeen t1_j85angn wrote

Yea that certainly seems useful but it also sounds like a mix of search engine and chatgpt. MSs updates to bing might be able to do that?

2

[deleted] t1_j85flmh wrote

The problem I found with chatgpt and other AI is the word limit. I believe it is 4000 words max. and that includes the summary as well.

If anyone knows a fix, please let me know. In the meantime, I use an AI-tool called scholarcy, but it lacks data to be fed with. I study a subject that is *very* reading-heavy, so I can't simply rely on the abstract, and 100 pages per week/course is mostly too much to handle, while working part-time.

8

VelveteenAmbush t1_j85ngvn wrote

Do a two-step. Summarize each paper so the summaries all fit into the context window, then have it compare and contrast.

5

A_Light_Spark t1_j854o19 wrote

Depends on the paper/authors. Sometimes they reallllyyy try to not tell you what they found or how they found it until you get to the method and conclusion.

6

Trakeen t1_j85aa80 wrote

Probably depends on field? I’ve not typically encountered this and most other researchers are going to be looking at dozens of papers at least so they really don’t want to actually have to dig into a paper to find the meat

2

A_Light_Spark t1_j85cy4f wrote

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

is_it_fun t1_j85wuxs wrote

Right? I can write my own version that just gives you the abstract.

2