I was wondering when I’d get an opportunity to use Deep Research – I didn’t have any particular need for it on a day-to-day basis.
Until now.
The EURO conference is coming up next week and I’m brushing up on my history of SSM (Soft Systems Methodology).
Mingers (2000) has a table listing published case studies that use soft systems or soft OR methods.
This, I thought, might be an opportunity to test Gemini’s Deep Research.
I asked it to review the literature and create an up to date table.
The results are impressive. On the surface.
24 pages. 7,399 words. 53 references. In about half an hour.
The table in Mingers (2000) has around 51 references. Gemini has 13 – rather shallow. I assume it would do more if you asked.
The writing is fine. The structure is good. The content is relevant. The experience is dead.
There’s nothing that stands out. It feels like one of those film sets they use when making Westerns – something that looks like the real thing, but that’s empty behind.
It has the following readability grades:
- Kincaid: 14.7
- ARI: 16.6
- Coleman-Liau: 18.2
- Flesch Index: 23.6/100
- Fog Index: 18.5
- Lix: 62.0 = higher than school year 11
- SMOG-Grading: 15.5
Those aren’t particularly good. Essentially lots of big words strung together.
It looks academic. Plausible. Researched, even.
But is that enough?
References
Mingers, J., 2000. An Idea Ahead of Its Time: The History and Development of Soft Systems Methodology. Systemic Practice and Action Research 13, 733–755.
Handcrafted insight 