And this isn’t even really a great application for RAG. Papermaps just goes off of references and citations. Perhaps a sentiment analysis would be marginally useful, but since you need a human to verify all LLM outputs it would be a dubious time savings.

The system scores review papers very favorably and the “yes/no/maybe” conclusion is right in the abstract, usually the last sentence or two of it. This is not a prime candidate for any LLM, it’s simple database operations on srtuctured data that already exists. There’s no use case here.

I see, thanks for clarifying.

I think that concern is partly covered by their scoring. If a bad-faith actor put together a distorted gathering of papers that favored their conclusions but weren’t cited widely, those papers would have very small circles.

So it would be visually apparent that either: they were being dishonest in their research gathering, or the question has not yet been studied widely enough for this tool to be useful.

The more I think about this the more I love this project and their way of displaying the state of consensus on a question.

They provide links to their github that explains their whole methodology. This is a scientific effort and is as transparent and well-documented as a project can be. They provide the code so you can understand the exact mechanics at play or just fork the project if you want to take the work in a different direction.

It’s a great project and long overdue. I personally think scientific journals are incredibly outdated and haven’t been necessary for a couple of decades. Just put your work on a stable web site and cut out the parasites at the journals.

You can suggest new maps. They ask for links to papers, so if this is a thing you are passionate about and have some recent papers, especially review papers. Reviews seem to get more points in their schemes.

I love this project too and have a personal passion in neurobiology studies related to benefits of yoga. When I have a couple of hours, I will submit a map suggestion for that topic.

They provide direct quotes from the papers that support their scoring and also direct links to the full papers.

It’s super easy to just check their conclusions. I followed up on several papers yes and no on the vax question. There was no skullduggery as every paper I looked at was represented fairly in the scoring.

As in other scientific efforts, this is not just a ‘trust me, bro’ situation. They provide references.

Can we get Ron Howard to deliver the last line?

mama mia!

Just be sure to eat your veggies! You will know when the time is right.

Get the fuck drunk enough and it will suck itself.

I loved it too. And also had the same thought. It is atmospheric, a slow burn, captivating. In the end not much actually happened. So I am not compelled to see it again.

Sam R is one of several GOAT actors however.

Batteries and capacitors both store electrical potential, but in different ways. So yes you can compare their performance at storing and then delivering electricity under specified conditions.

Batteries can keep charge longer with less loss, but capacitors are faster at responding to rapid changes in eletrical supply and demand.

The quote you included shows exactly how they compared the performance at low temperatures, as an example. Maybe I am missing your objection?

That would be a Radical Faerie.

Seriously check them out. It’s a cool and really influential group of pioneering gay dudes, gaying it up on the farm.

They have sort of died out as a group, but one can hold a pitchfork in a homosexual manner whenever you choose. That’s not illegal yet.

Radical Faeries

Right. It seems analogous to regenerative braking in a gas/electric hybrid car. The momentum is turned back into electricity to reclaim potential energy. Some of the energy was already spent in RO stage and this process gets some of it back.

Fun fact: you do not need permission to re-word your own texts if you realize upon re-reading it that one sounds like a snarky bitch.

See my comment to OP for a recentish publication that shows the same thing all studies previously have shown. You are quite correct.

No one that has looked at this in a serious way agrees with you.

From the abstract:

“These results suggest that the movements involved in handwriting allow a greater memorization of new words. The advantage of handwriting over typing might also be caused by a more positive mood during learning. Finally, our results show that handwriting with a digital pen and tablet can increase the ability to learn compared with keyboard typing once the individuals are accustomed to it.”

Handwriting helps retention better than typing.

What the Hell even is that?