71–80 of 134 posts
Arbitrary numbers are really the least information. At least use last names and years, so I can have some idea which paper you are talking about without scrolling back and forth.
I really, really wish you would use a different citation format. Arbitrary numbers are really the least information. At least use last names and years, so I can have some idea which paper you are talking about without scrolling back and forth.
I'd love to see limitations like this quantified and clearly flagged. Otherwise there's a danger that people may the assume results are definitive, and this could have the opposite outcome to that intended (much time spent working on something only to disocver it's been done already).
I tried this with a question for an area I know well. It's pretty impressive but missed some key references. I'd love to see limitations like this quantified and clearly flagged. Otherwise there's a danger that people may the assume results are definitive, and this could have the opposite outcome to that intended (much time spent working on something only to disocver it's been done already).
I tried this with a question for an area I know well. It's pretty impressive but missed some key references. I'd love to see limitations like this quantified and clearly flagged. Otherwise there's a danger that people may the assume results are definitive, and this could have the opposite outcome to that intended (much time spent working on something only to disocver it's been done already).
Yes, this is one of the most important aspects of the tool; in cases where you care about getting everything, make sure to take a look at the estimated percent of papers found at the bottom of the summary section. That gives you a sense of how complete the set of references likely are. We've tuned it to get around half of the total papers for the "median" user query on a first pass. If users desire, they can "extend"…
I tried a search on my previous research area (https://www.undermind.ai/query_app/display_one_search/5408b4...) and it missed some key theoretical papers. At the same time, it picked up the three or four papers I’d expected it to find plus a PhD thesis I expected it to find. The results at the top of the list though are very recent and one of them is on something totally different to what I asked it for (“Skyrmion bubbles” != “Skyrmions”). The 7th result is an absolutely core paper, would be the one I’d give to a new PhD student going into this area and the one I’d have expected it to push up to the top of the list.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, this is one of the most important aspects of the tool; in cases where you care about getting everything, make sure to take a look at the estimated percent of papers found at the bottom of the summary section. That gives you a sense of how complete the set of references likely are. We've tuned it to get around half of the total papers for the "median" user query on a first pass. If users desire, they can "extend"…
Thanks for clarifying. I didn't appreciate that it only searches abstracts. That might explain some of the missing references. Anyway, great work, will look forward to using it more.
Very cool, and very relevant to my life -- I am currently writing a meta-analysis and finishing my literature search. I gave it a version of my question, it asked me reasonable follow-ups, and we refined the search to: > I want to find randomized controlled trials published by December 2023, investigating interventions to reduce consumption of meat and animal products with control groups receiving no treatment, measu…