Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project continues and revises Meikle’s mechanisation of Hilbert’s Foundations of Geometry in Isabelle/HOL, focusing on declarative-style proofs to create readable and maintainable proof documents. In the interests of readability and conciseness, we have investigated general-purpose abstractions for geometric reasoning, and have shown how these can simplify existing proofs. We have revised many of the existing definitions by introducing new types, and analysed the notion of rays and half-planes more deeply than Hilbert had originally. Finally, we have corrected subtle mistakes in Meikle’s mechanised axioms of Group III, forcing us to produce new corrected proofs of the early theorems. i Acknowledgements I cannot give enough thanks to my supervisors, Jacques Fleuriot and Laura Meikle. I would be fortunate enough to have even one supervisor with their knowledge, dedication and passion for the subject matter. ii Declaration I declare that this thesis was composed by myself, that the work contained herein is
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".