Yeah slapping a wildly misleading literary reference that completely misuses the concept into a paper is not really standard practice. At least they gave it a different spelling so as to try to differentiate, it’s a shame that it wasn’t carried over to the title.
Comment on A.I. groks 66%-76% faster with data augmentation strategies.
Hackworth@lemmy.world 2 months agoWell-defined for casual use is very different than well-defined for scholarly research. It’s standard practice to take colloquial vocab and more narrowly define it for use within a scientific discipline. Sometimes different disciplines will narrowly define the same word two different ways, which makes interdisciplinary communication pretty funny.
Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com 2 months ago
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
No. It’s not standard at all, especially when the goal is overtly misleading.
Maybe one or both disciplines is promoting bullshit.
Hackworth@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Did you have a question?
EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Yeah what ails you, stranger?