4 ms·

America has a larger problem than Advanced Manufacturing

8 points by thewanderer1983 3y ago

thewanderer1983 3y ago
Table is from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute Critical Technology Tracker. More details here. https://www.aspi.org.au/report/critical-technology-tracker https://www.aspi.org.au/report/critical-technology-tracker
- rewmie 3y ago
  Why didn't you linked to the report instead? This feels like original research, and I doubt that a lot of people will be bothered to verify your claims.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  1. Link the article, not the screenshot 2. The ASPI's methodology is flawed. It's based only on citations in the "top 10% of journals", which includes most IEEE or ACM subgroup-esque journals. This is not to say Chinese research is ahead or behind, but the methodology used is just whack as it doesn't take production capacities into account or R&D funding capacity - only publishing. This is why Iran was found to lead in a couple subfields by the ASPI, because the Iranian govt started citation gaming a couple years ago [0], HPE ranking on top for HPC despite IBM and Nvidia being the primary private sector orgs in HPC R&D, and a number of subfields (eg. "distributed ledgers" and "hardware accelerated AI") showing a supposed Chinese lead even though in action some of those subfields are bullshit (distributed ledgers) or R&D is not published due to national security reasons (hardware accelerated AI research @ National Labs) The one by Nature felt like a more accurate gauge than this one [0] - https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/citation-counting-encouraging-cheating-iran https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/citation-counting-...
  - Blammar 3y ago
    My googlefu failed me. Do you have a link to the Nature report?
JPLeRouzic 3y ago
Names such as "coatings", "smart materials", "advanced protection", "high performance computing" are not very informative, you can include or exclude anything in such technology names.

4 ms·

America has a larger problem than Advanced Manufacturing

8 points by thewanderer1983 3y ago

thewanderer1983 3y ago
Table is from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute Critical Technology Tracker. More details here. https://www.aspi.org.au/report/critical-technology-tracker https://www.aspi.org.au/report/critical-technology-tracker
- rewmie 3y ago
  Why didn't you linked to the report instead? This feels like original research, and I doubt that a lot of people will be bothered to verify your claims.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  1. Link the article, not the screenshot 2. The ASPI's methodology is flawed. It's based only on citations in the "top 10% of journals", which includes most IEEE or ACM subgroup-esque journals. This is not to say Chinese research is ahead or behind, but the methodology used is just whack as it doesn't take production capacities into account or R&D funding capacity - only publishing. This is why Iran was found to lead in a couple subfields by the ASPI, because the Iranian govt started citation gaming a couple years ago [0], HPE ranking on top for HPC despite IBM and Nvidia being the primary private sector orgs in HPC R&D, and a number of subfields (eg. "distributed ledgers" and "hardware accelerated AI") showing a supposed Chinese lead even though in action some of those subfields are bullshit (distributed ledgers) or R&D is not published due to national security reasons (hardware accelerated AI research @ National Labs) The one by Nature felt like a more accurate gauge than this one [0] - https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/citation-counting-encouraging-cheating-iran https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/citation-counting-...
  - Blammar 3y ago
    My googlefu failed me. Do you have a link to the Nature report?
JPLeRouzic 3y ago
Names such as "coatings", "smart materials", "advanced protection", "high performance computing" are not very informative, you can include or exclude anything in such technology names.