21–30 of 150 posts
How come we don't have extensive software for helping doctor decision making by making use e.g of bayesian inference while feeding on the available superintelligence that enable those 24 millions paper? Expert systems long passed the hype curve and it's time for them to cycle up again!
How come we don't have extensive software for helping doctor decision making by making use e.g of bayesian inference while feeding on the available superintelligence that enable those 24 millions paper? Expert systems long passed the hype curve and it's time for them to cycle up again!
I think Watson does something like this.
https://slate.com/technology/2022/01/ibm-watson-health-failu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Watson does something like this.
It didn't seem to actually work though. https://slate.com/technology/2022/01/ibm-watson-health-failu...
i asked this question here and at many places before. why do people "rely" on an organization that sifts through hundreds of thousands of papers and then charge exorbitant prices for providing this service? if we use the amazon analogy, is amazon with millions of products worse than a boutique cat food seller that specializes in a specific cat food for a specific cat breed? maybe. but what about the "rest" of product…
It's interesting how sci-hub's papers on medicine dwarf those in many other fields like comp-sci, math, and physics. I wonder if that reflects the number of papers in those fields, or if sci-hub just has a non-representative sample. If the latter, why?
Interesting. Medical field dominates research in terms of publications. Chemistry produces double the papers compared to physics, and humanities are smaller than biology but larger than physics. I wonder where machine learning papers fit in - CS or Math or both?
It is note worthy that most of physics (at least high energy physics) ist published on arxiv.org and open access. I don't know if sci hub bothers with publications that are available freely from an official source.
Don't use the term "open access" like this. A paper published on arXiv is free to read, and was freely published. "Open access" is a scam by the big publishers, where they don't take money from the readers, but make the authors pay. Or, putting it another way, anyone can pay their way in those journals and publish (sometimes sub par) papers.
It's interesting how sci-hub's papers on medicine dwarf those in many other fields like comp-sci, math, and physics. I wonder if that reflects the number of papers in those fields, or if sci-hub just has a non-representative sample. If the latter, why?
It does appear to be the latter. I just searched for several famous ML papers (attention is all you need, lottery ticket hypothesis, capsules, etc) and they are not there. I think if someone counted all papers that have been ever published anywhere, the picture would be a lot different.
Or is there some other reason for the discrepancy?
How come we don't have extensive software for helping doctor decision making by making use e.g of bayesian inference while feeding on the available superintelligence that enable those 24 millions paper? Expert systems long passed the hype curve and it's time for them to cycle up again!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does appear to be the latter. I just searched for several famous ML papers (attention is all you need, lottery ticket hypothesis, capsules, etc) and they are not there. I think if someone counted all papers that have been ever published anywhere, the picture would be a lot different.
So does that mean that vastly more people in medicine use sci-hub than do people from other fields? Or is there some other reason for the discrepancy?