MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1670149396 · doi:10.1080/10652461003748112

Some uniqueness results for the non-trivially complete monotonicity of a class of functions involving the polygamma and related functions

2010· article· en· W1670149396 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegral Transforms and Special Functions · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Inequalities and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersVictoria University
KeywordsMonotonic functionMathematicsUniquenessSign (mathematics)Function (biology)Class (philosophy)Order (exchange)CombinatoricsPure mathematicsMathematical analysisDiscrete mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let the function f m, n (x) be given by In the present paper, we use two markedly different methods in order to prove that, among all f m, n (x)(m, n∈ℕ), only f 1, 2(x) is non-trivially completely monotonic on (0, ∞). More precisely, the functions f 1, 2(x) and f m, 2n−1(x) are completely monotonic on (0, ∞), but the functions f m, 2n (x) for (m, n)≠(1, 1) are not monotonic and do not keep the same sign on (0, ∞).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.294
Teacher spread0.244 · 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