|
|
|
|
|
|
by glup
1829 days ago
|
|
|
I find it interesting how this is premised on the "one big claim per paper" model, which for better or worse seems increasingly common. In my experience a lot of 60's-90's research is of the form "the results of our first study were consistent with [some specific paper], and our second experiment was not." This nuance is pretty hard for people to keep in mind, and often seems to get lost over time (as a postdoc in cognitive science at MIT, I've noticed a big difference between what papers actually say, vs. what people say those papers say 30 years on). I'm excited to see how well Scite actually works as I test it over the next week! |
|
|
We, at scite, actually designed scite to help folks see beyond the "one big claim per paper" model. Specifically, we designed scite to present show how specific results were either supported or contrasted by other papers, rather than showing that the publication itself was disputed or reproduced as a whole. If there was any feedback you could give on how we could present things so that folks don't get that impression we'd love it - feel free to DM me or let us know at hi@scite.ai as you test it out.
In an ideal world we would present the claims, results, and argumentation as structured information to the user but we are not quite at that stage yet!