The paper is "3D-based video recognition acceleration by leveraging temporal locality". Haven't found a copy online. I'd expect a paper like that to come with examples and a link to Github. Why fake something like that? Either the paper is ignored, or someone implements it and finds it doesn't work.
I spent a lot of time in my career implementing and comparing different algorithms based on published papers. This might surprise you but: - Most of them don't publish any kind of code or only snippets. - Most of the algorithms are incomplete (think "we add constant M here into equation tuned by an expert"). The chosen constants aren't documented and they're tweaked before publication to maximize results for the give…
The only metrics are journal status and citation count, which is partly why we're in this mess.
There should be some form of public post-review attached to all public work, with explicit requirements for rigour and reproducibility.
Some domains - like math - do at least attempt this, more or less. But CS doesn't seem to.
Aside from motivations - now skewed towards business outcomes - the underlying problem is that paper publishing as the gold standard for disseminating new research is a 17th century process and badly needs an update.