4 ms·

> An armchair effort Given the authors credentials and publication history [1] it's a bit disingenuous to call this an 'armchair effort'. [1] https://scholar.

• ppod 5y ago
  That's not a particularly impressive publication record.
• mnky9800n 5y ago
  My h index is twice as high and that's a terrible h index still lol
  • axiom92 5y ago
    This person's h-index is 10x yours: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=OHbcFkcAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=OHbcFkcAAAAJ&hl=en...! Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02479-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02479-7
    • mnky9800n 5y ago
      Ahaha. I should try harder.
• axiom92 5y ago
  In case you were highlighting the person's h-index or citation count, there are a few shortcomings that these metrics suffer from [1], making it very hard to judge scientific impact. EDIT: Specifically, self-citation is the biggest issue, though often there are very good reasons to do it. For example, if you are working on a new area there might not be a lot of work other than yours. However, mindless self-citation grows the number of citation at O(N), as your n^th paper cites the (n - 1) papers before it. The total citation count grows by O(N^2)). [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02479-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02479-7
• visarga 5y ago
  OK, I took a look, no evidence of neural nets, just semantic stuff which is previous gen AI and the citation count is not impressive.