再论大科技对人工智能研究的影响:从隶属关系看创意归属的记忆分析

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
Stanisław Giziński , Paulina Kaczyńska , Hubert Ruczyński , Emilia Wiśnios , Bartosz Pieliński , Przemysław Biecek , Julian Sienkiewicz
{"title":"再论大科技对人工智能研究的影响:从隶属关系看创意归属的记忆分析","authors":"Stanisław Giziński ,&nbsp;Paulina Kaczyńska ,&nbsp;Hubert Ruczyński ,&nbsp;Emilia Wiśnios ,&nbsp;Bartosz Pieliński ,&nbsp;Przemysław Biecek ,&nbsp;Julian Sienkiewicz","doi":"10.1016/j.joi.2024.101572","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>There exists a growing discourse around the domination of Big Tech on the landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) research, yet our comprehension of this phenomenon remains cursory. This paper aims to broaden and deepen our understanding of Big Tech's reach and power within AI research. It highlights the dominance not merely in terms of sheer publication volume but rather in the propagation of new ideas or <em>memes</em>. Current studies often oversimplify the concept of influence to the share of affiliations in academic papers, typically sourced from limited databases such as arXiv or specific academic conferences.</p><p>The main goal of this paper is to unravel the specific nuances of such influence, determining which AI ideas are predominantly driven by Big Tech entities. By employing network and memetic analysis on AI-oriented paper abstracts and their citation network, we are able to grasp a deeper insight into this phenomenon. By utilizing two databases: <em>OpenAlex</em> and <em>S2ORC</em>, we are able to perform such analysis on a much bigger scale than previous attempts.</p><p>Our findings suggest that while Big Tech-affiliated papers are disproportionately more cited in some areas, the most cited papers are those affiliated with both Big Tech and Academia. Focusing on the most contagious memes, their attribution to specific affiliation groups (Big Tech, Academia, mixed affiliation) seems equally distributed between those three groups. This suggests that the notion of Big Tech domination over AI research is oversimplified in the discourse.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157724000841/pdfft?md5=1da519ec197e0affad1838ca39a68f58&pid=1-s2.0-S1751157724000841-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Big Tech influence over AI research revisited: Memetic analysis of attribution of ideas to affiliation\",\"authors\":\"Stanisław Giziński ,&nbsp;Paulina Kaczyńska ,&nbsp;Hubert Ruczyński ,&nbsp;Emilia Wiśnios ,&nbsp;Bartosz Pieliński ,&nbsp;Przemysław Biecek ,&nbsp;Julian Sienkiewicz\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.joi.2024.101572\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>There exists a growing discourse around the domination of Big Tech on the landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) research, yet our comprehension of this phenomenon remains cursory. This paper aims to broaden and deepen our understanding of Big Tech's reach and power within AI research. It highlights the dominance not merely in terms of sheer publication volume but rather in the propagation of new ideas or <em>memes</em>. Current studies often oversimplify the concept of influence to the share of affiliations in academic papers, typically sourced from limited databases such as arXiv or specific academic conferences.</p><p>The main goal of this paper is to unravel the specific nuances of such influence, determining which AI ideas are predominantly driven by Big Tech entities. By employing network and memetic analysis on AI-oriented paper abstracts and their citation network, we are able to grasp a deeper insight into this phenomenon. By utilizing two databases: <em>OpenAlex</em> and <em>S2ORC</em>, we are able to perform such analysis on a much bigger scale than previous attempts.</p><p>Our findings suggest that while Big Tech-affiliated papers are disproportionately more cited in some areas, the most cited papers are those affiliated with both Big Tech and Academia. Focusing on the most contagious memes, their attribution to specific affiliation groups (Big Tech, Academia, mixed affiliation) seems equally distributed between those three groups. This suggests that the notion of Big Tech domination over AI research is oversimplified in the discourse.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157724000841/pdfft?md5=1da519ec197e0affad1838ca39a68f58&pid=1-s2.0-S1751157724000841-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157724000841\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157724000841","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

围绕大科技公司在人工智能(AI)研究领域的主导地位的讨论越来越多,但我们对这一现象的理解仍然很粗浅。本文旨在拓宽和加深我们对大科技公司在人工智能研究领域的影响力的理解。它强调了大科技的主导地位不仅体现在纯粹的出版量上,更体现在新思想或新模式的传播上。目前的研究通常将影响力的概念过度简化为学术论文中的附属关系份额,这些数据通常来自有限的数据库,如 arXiv 或特定的学术会议。本文的主要目标是揭示这种影响力的具体细微差别,确定哪些人工智能思想主要由大科技实体驱动。通过对面向人工智能的论文摘要及其引用网络进行网络和记忆分析,我们能够更深入地了解这一现象。我们利用了两个数据库:我们的研究结果表明,虽然在某些领域与大科技相关的论文被引用的比例更高,但被引用最多的论文是那些与大科技和学术界都有关联的论文。我们的研究结果表明,虽然大科技公司的论文在某些领域被引用的比例更高,但被引用次数最多的是那些同时隶属于大科技公司和学术界的论文。这表明,大科技公司主导人工智能研究的概念在讨论中被过度简化了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Big Tech influence over AI research revisited: Memetic analysis of attribution of ideas to affiliation

There exists a growing discourse around the domination of Big Tech on the landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) research, yet our comprehension of this phenomenon remains cursory. This paper aims to broaden and deepen our understanding of Big Tech's reach and power within AI research. It highlights the dominance not merely in terms of sheer publication volume but rather in the propagation of new ideas or memes. Current studies often oversimplify the concept of influence to the share of affiliations in academic papers, typically sourced from limited databases such as arXiv or specific academic conferences.

The main goal of this paper is to unravel the specific nuances of such influence, determining which AI ideas are predominantly driven by Big Tech entities. By employing network and memetic analysis on AI-oriented paper abstracts and their citation network, we are able to grasp a deeper insight into this phenomenon. By utilizing two databases: OpenAlex and S2ORC, we are able to perform such analysis on a much bigger scale than previous attempts.

Our findings suggest that while Big Tech-affiliated papers are disproportionately more cited in some areas, the most cited papers are those affiliated with both Big Tech and Academia. Focusing on the most contagious memes, their attribution to specific affiliation groups (Big Tech, Academia, mixed affiliation) seems equally distributed between those three groups. This suggests that the notion of Big Tech domination over AI research is oversimplified in the discourse.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信