  Objective: To determine the completeness of argumentative steps necessary to
conclude effectiveness of an algorithm in a sample of current ML/AI supervised
learning literature.
  Data Sources: Papers published in the Neural Information Processing Systems
(NeurIPS, n\'ee NIPS) journal where the official record showed a 2017 year of
publication.
  Eligibility Criteria: Studies reporting a (semi-)supervised model, or
pre-processing fused with (semi-)supervised models for tabular data.
  Study Appraisal: Three reviewers applied the assessment criteria to determine
argumentative completeness. The criteria were split into three groups,
including: experiments (e.g real and/or synthetic data), baselines (e.g
uninformed and/or state-of-art) and quantitative comparison (e.g. performance
quantifiers with confidence intervals and formal comparison of the algorithm
against baselines).
  Results: Of the 121 eligible manuscripts (from the sample of 679 abstracts),
99\% used real-world data and 29\% used synthetic data. 91\% of manuscripts did
not report an uninformed baseline and 55\% reported a state-of-art baseline.
32\% reported confidence intervals for performance but none provided references
or exposition for how these were calculated. 3\% reported formal comparisons.
  Limitations: The use of one journal as the primary information source may not
be representative of all ML/AI literature. However, the NeurIPS conference is
recognised to be amongst the top tier concerning ML/AI studies, so it is
reasonable to consider its corpus to be representative of high-quality
research.
  Conclusion: Using the 2017 sample of the NeurIPS supervised learning corpus
as an indicator for the quality and trustworthiness of current ML/AI research,
it appears that complete argumentative chains in demonstrations of algorithmic
effectiveness are rare.
