Industry and Academic Research in Computer Vision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work aims to study the dynamic between research in the industry and academia in computer vision. The results are demonstrated on a set of top-5 vision conferences that are representative of the field. Since data for such analysis was not readily available, significant effort was spent on gathering and processing meta-data from the original publications. First, this study quantifies the share of industry-sponsored research. Specifically, it shows that the proportion of papers published by industry-affiliated researchers is increasing and that more academics join companies or collaborate with them. Next, the possible impact of industry presence is further explored, namely in the distribution of research topics and citation patterns. The results indicate that the distribution of the research topics is similar in industry and academic papers. However, there is a strong preference towards citing industry papers. Finally, possible reasons for citation bias, such as code availability and influence, are investigated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.055 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".