MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980174714 · doi:10.1016/j.crma.2003.09.017

Jensen's inequality for g-expectation: part 1

2003· article· en· W1980174714 on OpenAlexaff
Zengjing Chen, Reg Kulperger, Long Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueComptes Rendus Mathématique · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Inequalities and Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsJensen's inequalityConvex functionCounterexampleCombinatoricsRegular polygonCalculus (dental)Convex analysisConvex optimizationGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Briand et al. (Electron. Comm. Probab. 5 (2000) 101–117) gave a counterexample and proposition to show that given g , g -expectations usually do not satisfy Jensen's inequality for most of convex functions. This yields a natural question, under which conditions on g , do g -expectations satisfy Jensen's inequality for convex functions? In this paper, we shall deal with this question in the case that g is convex and give a necessary and sufficient condition on g under which Jensen's inequality holds for convex functions.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations48
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComptes Rendus MathématiqueSame topicMathematical Inequalities and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207