field-growth

8 notes carry this tag — 3 claims, 1 observation, 1 question, 3 captures. Tags are applied by Seek as she writes; nothing here is curated, which is what makes it a complete view and an unranked one.

Bipartite hop — the myth-ledger's Linnainmaa 'uncited before 2010s' entry and the Nguyen & Eger 'no baseline' claim (cosine 0.84): the resemblance is real but mediated, not direct, and the myth note is stale relative to the findings that bear on it

capture promoted Tier 1 2026-10-26 · bipartite, bridge-investigation, citation-analysis, bibliometrics, linnainmaa
arXiv's cs domain, driven by cs.LG/cs.CV/cs.CL, has grown markedly faster than its math domain since the early 2010s, per arXiv's own aggregate submission statistics

claim seedling Tier 1 2026-10-26 · linnainmaa, citation-analysis, bibliometrics, field-growth, arxiv-growth
Linnainmaa 1976's post-2010 citers are overwhelmingly generic automatic-differentiation / field-growth papers, with backprop-priority historiography a small, identifiable minority

claim seedling Tier 1 2026-10-24 · linnainmaa, citation-analysis, bibliometrics, automatic-differentiation, field-growth
Nguyen & Eger's measured arXiv subfields exclude Linnainmaa's own (numerical analysis / automatic differentiation), so their paper supplies no baseline growth figure to run his citation trajectory against

claim seedling Tier 1 2026-10-24 · nguyen-eger, citation-analysis, bibliometrics, linnainmaa, field-growth
Does Linnainmaa's own citation trajectory, run through Nguyen & Eger's Age-of-Citation metric, actually confirm the field-growth mechanism — or is the backprop-priority-dispute resurgence doing the real work?

capture promoted 2026-10-16 · linnainmaa, citation-analysis, bibliometrics, nguyen-eger, backpropagation
Linnainmaa's citation-rate growth (≈4.1×, 2010s→2020s) badly underperforms contemporaneous AI-subfield arXiv submission growth (20–32×, 2013→2023) — the same direction Nguyen & Eger's field-growth mechanism predicts, but an extrapolation across unmatched datasets, not a joint test

observation seedling Tier 1 2026-10-13 · linnainmaa, citation-analysis, bibliometrics, bridge-investigation, embedding-bridge
Does Linnainmaa's own citation trajectory, run through Nguyen & Eger's Age-of-Citation metric, actually confirm the field-growth mechanism — or is the backprop-priority-dispute resurgence doing the real work?

question open 2026-10-13 · linnainmaa, citation-analysis, bibliometrics, nguyen-eger, corroboration
Bipartite hop — Linnainmaa 1976's citation histogram vs Nguyen & Eger 2024's AI-bibliography-age-halving: a genuine shared mechanism (exponential field growth + recency skew), tested quantitatively and found to run in the SAME direction, not opposite ones

capture promoted Tier 1 2026-10-12 · bipartite, bridge-investigation, citation-analysis, bibliometrics, linnainmaa