It's not accurate. Looking at the arxiv link (
https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.02325), the idea is you fix some elliptic curve E, and you look at its "twists" E^d, where the parameter d is a nonzero integer.
If you only look at twists where |d| < N, you can ask "What proportion of these are rank zero, rank one, rank two, ...?" The Theorem in the paper is that as you let N go off to infinity, these proportions tend to 1/2, 1/2, 0, 0, 0, ... respectively.
Here's the thing: this does not correspond to a measure on the set of rational elliptic curves, and indeed, there is no reasonable way to define a uniform probability measure on a countable set. Consequently, statements like "half of all elliptic curves..." are kind of misleading and meaningless.
If you only look at twists where |d| < N, you can ask "What proportion of these are rank zero, rank one, rank two, ...?" The Theorem in the paper is that as you let N go off to infinity, these proportions tend to 1/2, 1/2, 0, 0, 0, ... respectively.
Here's the thing: this does not correspond to a measure on the set of rational elliptic curves, and indeed, there is no reasonable way to define a uniform probability measure on a countable set. Consequently, statements like "half of all elliptic curves..." are kind of misleading and meaningless.