This article is almost criminally flawed. The author makes some horrible assumptions and presents shoddy data. Even if we assume that the latent space model is "correct" (we shouldn't), they don't present anything like variance or number of samples in a year. Then they sort of arbitrarily fit a line to data which pretty clearly looks non-linear.
Suppose, for example, that The Crimson (not Harvard btw, it's a student newspaper) runs 10x as many articles this year as last. It's possible you're going to get a huge reduction in cosine distance just by virtue of a few authors producing a lot more content.
At a minimum, we need mean, variance, and number of samples. This doesn't tell you anything about "Harvard", it just tells you about the students who the Crimson choose to publish. There are lots of structural reasons within Harvard that the Crimson has probably stopped being a unified voice of the student body -- but again, that's not what the article purports to show.
Suppose, for example, that The Crimson (not Harvard btw, it's a student newspaper) runs 10x as many articles this year as last. It's possible you're going to get a huge reduction in cosine distance just by virtue of a few authors producing a lot more content.
At a minimum, we need mean, variance, and number of samples. This doesn't tell you anything about "Harvard", it just tells you about the students who the Crimson choose to publish. There are lots of structural reasons within Harvard that the Crimson has probably stopped being a unified voice of the student body -- but again, that's not what the article purports to show.