pull down to refresh

16 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 8 Jun \ on: sci-bot: LLM model trained on sci-hubs papers AI science

Any sense of how much fraud is in there?

I mostly followed the Replication Crisis in the social sciences but I definitely recall hearing about lots of problems on the physical sciences side.

write
compose
72 sats \ 1 reply \ @south_korea_ln OP 8 Jun

Lots of crappy science, including in the physical sciences.

I would not go as far as call it fraud. Fraud would imply intent.
Stupidity yes; malice, mostly, no. Most people don't know how to perform a proper statistical analysis. They don't know they don't know.

reply
16 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 8 Jun

Stupidity is probably the preferable option. You at least wouldn’t expect the errors to tend in a particular direction.

I think medical science had one of the higher fraud rates. The most glaring strategy that I recall was authors basically just taking a previously published study and swapping the disease of interest in the text.

reply