Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has experienced remarkable growth, largely driven by significant advancements in algorithm structures. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the key algorithmic frameworks employed in AI, with a primary focus on traditional algorithms and their evolution in response to modern deep learning techniques. Traditional algorithms, such as decision trees, support vector machines, and genetic algorithms, have long served as foundational pillars in AI research. However, the advent of deep learning has introduced new paradigms that significantly enhance these algorithms in terms of performance, scalability, and adaptability. By analyzing the classification, characteristics, and limitations of traditional algorithms, this study compares them with deep learning models, highlighting both their strengths and shortcomings. Furthermore, this paper examines how deep learning improves traditional algorithms through case studies that showcase enhanced performance, broader application domains, and evolving design principles. This study is based on an analysis of publicly available datasets and a comprehensive review of the current literature. The findings suggest that while traditional algorithms offer a solid foundation, deep learning has revolutionized algorithmic design, paving the way for new applications and innovations in AI. Ultimately, this review underscores the critical role of integrating deep learning into traditional algorithmic frameworks for the future of AI.
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 | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".