Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40322469›Full record

ArticleDigital society : ethics, socio-legal and governance of digital technology2025

State-of-the-Art: The Temporal Order of Benchmarking Culture.

Alexander Campolo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital society : ethics, socio-legal and governance of digital technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Alexander CampoloDepartment of Geography, Durham University, Lower Mountjoy, South Road, Durham, DH1 3LE UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3159-4131

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This commentary situates the epistemic values of machine learning's culture of benchmarking and evaluation within larger temporal structures. Beyond questions of validity, whether model comparisons are statistically valid or whether benchmarks adequately represent meaningful tasks or capabilities, it asks how benchmarks produce certain temporal values and expectations. It articulates two hypotheses in response: the first, termed normalizing research, seeks to characterize how benchmarking simultaneously serves a disciplining and motivating function in research, with the effect of minimizing conflict. The second, termed extrapolation, argues that the incremental, progressive rhythm of benchmarking is oriented less towards the future than towards a present state-of-the-art (SOTA). Together, these hypotheses inform a diagnosis of the presentist temporality of benchmarking and evaluation in machine learning.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceBenchmarkingMachine learningObjectivityPresentismTemporality

Identifiers

PMID40322469
PMCPMC12048445

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.