MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1648977533 · doi:10.1216/rmj-2015-45-6-1985

Computing quadratic function fields with high 3-rank via cubic field tabulation

2015· preprint· en· W1648977533 on OpenAlexafffund
Pieter Rozenhart, Michael J. Jacobson, Renate Scheidler

Bibliographic record

VenueRocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics · 2015
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAnalytic Number Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsRank (graph theory)Field (mathematics)Quadratic equationFunction (biology)Finite fieldQuadratic fieldFunction fieldCombinatoricsAutomorphismDegree (music)DiscriminantDiscrete mathematicsQuadratic functionPure mathematicsGeometryPhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present extensive numerical data on quadratic function fields with non-zero 3-rank. We use a function field adaptation of a method due to Belabas for finding quadratic number fields of high 3-rank. Our algorithm relies on previous work for tabulating cubic function fields of bounded discriminant \cite {Pieter3} but includes a significant novel improvement when the discriminants are imaginary. We provide numerical data for discriminant degree up to 11 over the finite fields $\mathbb{F}_5, \mathbb{F}_7, \mathbb{F}_11$ and $\mathbb{F}_13$ and $\mathbb{F}_13$. In addition to presenting new examples of fields of minimal discriminant degree with a given 3-rank, we compare our data with a variety of heuristics on the density of such fields with a given 3-rank, which in most cases supports their validity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRocky Mountain Journal of MathematicsSame topicAnalytic Number Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207