MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966613145 · doi:10.3329/dujs.v60i2.11487

A Computer Technique for Solving LP Problems with Bounded Variables

2012· article· en· W1966613145 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

VenueDhaka University Journal of Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBounded functionLinear programmingCode (set theory)Simplex algorithmSimplexBasis (linear algebra)MathematicsMatrix (chemical analysis)Mathematical optimizationComputer scienceAlgorithmCombinatoricsProgramming languageMathematical analysisGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Linear Programming problem (LPP)s with upper bounded variables can be solved using the Bounded Simplex method (BSM),without the explicit consideration of the upper bounded constraints. The upper bounded constraints are considered implicitly in this method which reduced the size of the basis matrix significantly. In this paper, we have developed MATHEMATICA codes for solving such problems. A complete algorithm of the program with the help of a numerical example has been provided. Finally a comparison with the built-in code has been made for showing the efficiency of the developed code.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/dujs.v60i2.11487 Dhaka Univ. J. Sci. 60(2): 163-168, 2012 (July)

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.412
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.260 · 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