Listen up, physics cripples
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Electrostatics and absurdities of modern physics
Next: All laws in science are based upon explanations of observations. All explanations are theoretical. Therefore laws are theories.
From: Jonathan Schattke on 5 Jun 2010 14:40 On 6/5/2010 1:32 PM, Patok wrote: > Jonathan Schattke wrote: >> On 6/5/2010 11:45 AM, Patok wrote: >>> Uncle Al wrote: >>>> http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/ http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/highscores/ >>>> Choose between a published physics paper title and technobabble. Make >>>> the binary choice, enjoy your running reality score. >>> >>> No one can do better than random on that one. Only if one knew all >>> papers published in the area - but that's impossible in principle. The >>> generator is very good. >>> >> >> Actually, I ran 66%. Which is about right, considering I'm an >> undergrad with interest in the field. > > But how did you do it? Did you recognize some of the real papers? I > tried only 3 actually, :) because I was more interested in /how/ it > works, than in the test itself. Of the three, the only one I got right > was where the title of the fake one was PDFs -- hardly a real article > could afford to be called that. While for the other two, even after the > truth was revealed, the titles of the fake ones looked more (or at least > as) authentic as the real ones. > P.S. - I did 10 more of them, and got 70% this time, but still maintain > that the generator is very good. Actually, by knowing the headlines from ScienceNews. Their paper generator is good, but not perfect. It's a fun little test.
From: eric gisse on 5 Jun 2010 18:27 Uncle Al wrote: [...] > Chemist Uncle Al scored 32/51, 63%. Uncle Al's strategy was wholly > trivial - based upon the flow of text not the content: What would an > academic puff pigeon not publish as a title? > I tried both content and grammar and barely scored better. Even some stuff that struck me as obvious nonsense was actually real. There's a lesson here for the HEP crowd.
From: Uncle Al on 5 Jun 2010 20:20 eric gisse wrote: > > Uncle Al wrote: > [...] > > > Chemist Uncle Al scored 32/51, 63%. Uncle Al's strategy was wholly > > trivial - based upon the flow of text not the content: What would an > > academic puff pigeon not publish as a title? > > > > I tried both content and grammar and barely scored better. Even some stuff > that struck me as obvious nonsense was actually real. > > There's a lesson here for the HEP crowd. Amen. -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
From: blackhead on 5 Jun 2010 20:48 On 5 June, 17:11, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/highscores/ > > Choose between a published physics paper title and technobabble. Make > the binary choice, enjoy your running reality score. > > -- > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm 38% to start - rejected title if it looked too long winded. 62% - inverted above strategy. Larry
From: Wayne Throop on 5 Jun 2010 21:01
:: http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/ :: http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/highscores/ : blackhead <larryharson(a)softhome.net> : 38% to start - rejected title if it looked too long winded. : 62% - inverted above strategy. Indeed. I seemed to get 63% if I just chose the longest title consistently. With some minor tiebreaaking strategies for titles of roughly equal length, like, if a title seemed *too* much like gibberish, choose it as genuine, since the randomly generated ones are unlikely to be quite so... gibberish-y. Wayne Throop throopw(a)sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw |