MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973100193 · doi:10.1134/s0361768808020047

On solving large systems of polynomial equations appearing in discrete differential geometry

2008· article· en· W1973100193 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

VenueProgramming and Computer Software · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNonlinear Waves and Solitons
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverdetermined systemMathematicsPolynomialIntegrable systemSystem of polynomial equationsScalar (mathematics)Differential equationApplied mathematicsAlgebraic equationAlgebraic numberRectangleDifferential geometryPartial differential equationAlgebra over a fieldMathematical analysisPure mathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper describes methods for solving very large overdetermined algebraic polynomial systems on an example that appears from a classification of all integrable 3-dimensional scalar discrete quasilinear equations Q 3=0 on an elementary cubic cell of the lattice ℤ3. The overdetermined polynomial algebraic system that has to be solved is far too large to be formulated. A “probing” technique, which replaces independent variables by random integers or zero, allows to formulate subsets of this system. An automatic alteration of equation formulating steps and equation solving steps leads to an iteration process that solves the computational problem.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.550
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.225 · 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