3 ms·
very useful but flawed. the list biases against papers published later in the year. this is a problem raised by openai and brain researchers: https://twitter.
by panabee 4y ago
very useful but flawed.
the list biases against papers published later in the year.
this is a problem raised by openai and brain researchers: https://twitter.com/_jasonwei/status/1631935794301771777 https://twitter.com/_jasonwei/status/1631935794301771777
- zavrel 4y agoCitations are of course only a distant proxy for real world impact. What would you recommend as a better early indicator? We also looked at Tweet count, but that seems more biased towards marketing and hype, and in fact does not even correlate very well with citation count.
- TaylorAlexander 4y agoAlso the post conflates citations with impact. Citations is a measure of popularity, but impact is subjective. Which has more impact: stable diffusion or research that can better diagnose cancer? The answer to that could be argued either way.