MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971255859 · doi:10.1090/s0002-9947-09-04578-4

Permutation binomials over finite fields

2009· article· lv· W1971255859 on OpenAlexaff
Ariane M. Masuda, Michael E. Zieve

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the American Mathematical Society · 2009
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldComputer Science
TopicCoding theory and cryptography
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsPermutation (music)Partial permutationGeneralized permutation matrixCyclic permutationFinite fieldCombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsPure mathematicsSymmetric group

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We prove that if x m + a x n x^m + ax^n permutes the prime field F p \mathbb {F}_p , where m > n > 0 m>n>0 and a ∈ F p ∗ a\in \mathbb {F}_p^* , then gcd ( m − n , p − 1 ) > p − 1 \gcd (m-n,p-1) > \sqrt {p}-1 . Conversely, we prove that if q ≥ 4 q\ge 4 and m > n > 0 m>n>0 are fixed and satisfy gcd ( m − n , q − 1 ) > 2 q ( log ⁡ log ⁡ q ) / log ⁡ q \gcd (m-n,q-1) > 2q(\log \log q)/\log q , then there exist permutation binomials over

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)0.008
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.006

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations55
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the American Mathematical SocietySame topicCoding theory and cryptographyFrench-language works237,207