Author: Norio Iwase (Kyushu University)
Journal reference: arXiv preprint arXiv:1211.5741v6 [math.AT], 2013.
Comments: I should start by saying that this might very well be a fine paper. But then again, it might not. I simply have nowhere near the understanding of the area this paper covers (algebraic topology) necessary to make head or tails of it. While it's healthy to broaden my horizons by reading outside of my narrow field, there comes a point when so much study would be required to comprehend a paper that I, however reluctantly, have to put it on the 'too hard' pile.
So the question to address is this: why has Google Scholar Updates decided that this should be among the top papers archived in the last 300-odd days to recommend for me? One of the common deficiencies of this automated recommendation approach is that, unlike a recommendation from a human being, no reason is provided for why I might be interested in something, but scanning the paper provides a few clues. There are a couple of mathematical concepts in here which I have used in my publications (coalgebra, internal categories). Less helpfully, something called equivariance is used here, and I very frequently use the word 'equivariance' - but I mean a somewhat different thing by it than how it is used here. Has Updates been confused by a homonym? The paper also cites a PhD thesis by Marcelo Aguiar which I have cited before.
This is all very well and good, but a couple of mathematical concepts and one citation is just not enough of an 'in' when it comes to digesting a 53 page mathematical paper in an area for which I don't have anything close to the basic prerequisites. After two papers I've read and enjoyed, this is the experiment's first unambiguous failure. It will be interesting to see how often this happens as I continue.
No comments:
Post a Comment