[asdf_snar]

Thank you for this reply. My experience aligns with yours, and I find your conclusion (the question is not interesting) insightful. You're probably right.

I am an ex-academic that wrote useless algorithms. The implementations were mathematically correct and the algorithms did what we said they did, but the premise of the algorithm itself was flawed. To the extent that the algorithms were correct, the target problems were useless, and to the extent that the target problem was a "real-world" problem, there were a million things unrelated to the mathematics that made the contribution inconsequential.

The reason I wondered about such a study is that I know many academics who wouldn't believe the situation as dire as you describe it (though I very much agree it is <0.01% -- I just wanted to be conservative).