Machine learning an experimental science (revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1988, Langley wrote an influential editorial in the jour-nal Machine Learning titled “Machine Learning as an Exper-imental Science”, arguing persuasively for a greater focus on performance testing. Since that time the emphasis has be-come progressively stronger. Nowadays, to be accepted to one of our major conferences or journals, a paper must typ-ically contain a large experimental section with many tables of results, concluding with a statistical test. In revisiting this paper, I claim that we have ignored most of its advice. We have focused largely on only one aspect, hypothesis testing, and a narrow version at that. This version provides us with evidence that is much more impoverished than many people realize. I argue that such tests are of limited utility either for comparing algorithms or for promoting progress in our field. As such they should not play such a prominent role in our work and publications.
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 | 0.059 | 0.137 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".