PB2A!

“The Impact of Virtual Configurations on Machine Learning” and “Drinking to our health: can beverage companies cut calories while maintaining profit?” when put side by side seem to be highly thought out and intellectual research papers; however, when reading them both it is clear that “The Impact of Virtual Configurations on Machine Learning” makes absolutely no sense and was clearly generated (by SciGen). It seems as if a paper computer generated would be easy to spot; however, it was clear that the SciGen website too has studied conventions allowing for a very nice looking but very fraud essay.

To begin seeing how both papers can look so similar but different in content one can simply look at the titles and notice that they both chose to be direct and informational in their title choice. To begin, the SciGen generator chose to be straightforward and state that they would speak of the “impact of virtual configurations on machine learning”. This makes it clear to the audience what exactly they are reading and even what they can get out of the paper. On the other hand, Kleiman’s choice of the title includes a question that tells what the paper is going to be about. This question in the title goes so far that it arguably could be defined as the thesis statement of the essay.

            As the paper continues the SciGen paper not only is full with content but also is well organized to subheadings that could be found in both papers. The very first subheading is titled “Abstract” which essentially holds the thesis statement. In this case being “Jewise, our new method for atomic epistemologies, is the solution to all of these challenges.” Although this is a computer-generated paper, a thesis statement exists passing the “arguability” test for thesis statements and we know the essay will revolve around this “new method” and its effectiveness. A little different approach from the SciGen paper, Kleiman’s article chose to use questions as the thesis of the article, which can also be found at the end of their first subheading, the “introduction”. The reason why the author chose to use multiple questions as the thesis statement is because instead of taking a side just yet on the argument the research questions allow for the author to develop the research and once presented then takes a side on the situation.

The use of different approaches to their thesis statements then affected the layout, which the author presented the ideas; in other words, the subheadings don’t exactly follow the same order. Kleiman’s essay because of the questions presented as his thesis choses to get right to “data and methods” which is split into different groups of data that help explain the context in which the data is being presented. So by choosing to study the years 2000 to 2010, they not only take into consideration the increase in revenue by the Coke and Pepsi companies but also choose to take into consideration noticeable trends and even the population changes within those years. On the other hand, the SciGen paper chooses to hold off on the data until a few subheadings down and instead shows the “architecture” of the experiment and later the “implementation” of the experiment, which could be seen as a more hands-on study than that of the beverage drinks. In sum, the reason for the difference in the thesis statement and the presentation of the research can be due to the difference in ways the author’s attained the research

The research paper for the beverage drinks could be seen as a research paper using online sources for their information on profit, energy use, and calories per drink to help shape their essay. On the other hand, the SciGen generator seems to be conducting an experiment in which they get in their information on. The use of experiments rather than factual evidence to back up their paper shows that SciGen could be given less of validity as a paper even though it is a computer generated paper. The research paper on beverages on the other hand could be seen as more factual. This also could be affected by the chosen topics of studies in which one could be experimented on in order to find information while for the beverage paper its much harder to experiment to find their information rather than looking it up online.

The similar at first glance conventions of both these papers show that the subheadings, graphs, thesis statements, and titles all are very common to find in research papers showing their success; however, there also exists differences in their conventions because each study is under a different genre of study like beverages, sciences, humanities, etc. The conventions that do exist under both papers are important to study because their repetition shows success.