Re:TLDR: Extreme Summarization of Scientific Documents
by behnamoh on Friday November 27, 2020 @05:55PM
(#25233299)
While there are lots of TLDR websites out there, I want to know how this one is different from them. I get it; many scientific papers are to some extent bs, and many are just wrong. For PhDs, it's a hassle to go through all of that bs to find something that is actually true. I feel like PhDs basically have to spend hundreds of hours reading papers that don't really benefit them. Tools like this could probably help with that, but as long as scientific success is measured by how may papers you've published and/or how long your papers are, I don't see any hope of actually doing science in the coming years when the academia will be essentially "saturated" with papers.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:TLDR: Extreme Summarization of Scientific Documents
by tyingq on Friday November 27, 2020 @11:25PM
(#25235258)
It's Apache licensed and on github, which is substantially different from a lot of systems I see described in papers.
Re:TLDR: Extreme Summarization of Scientific Documents
by visarga on Saturday November 28, 2020 @12:06AM
(#25235445)
Never saw a paper lauded for its long length. Maybe the authors would have written shorter papers but they didn't have enough time.
Re:TLDR: Extreme Summarization of Scientific Documents
by bjornsing on Saturday November 28, 2020 @02:37AM
(#25236006)
No? Turing 1936 is well known as a lengthy paper.
(Just kidding.)
Re:TLDR: Extreme Summarization of Scientific Documents
by justarandomq on Friday November 27, 2020 @07:22PM
(#25233892)
You could link other TLDR tools and then we could read the paper to learn how they're different.