MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986267468 · doi:10.1109/scored.2011.6148777

Golden Ratio, the Phi, and Its Geometrical Substantiation

2011· article· en· W1986267468 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Mathematical Theories and Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGolden ratioIrrational numberRelation (database)Key (lock)ArchitectureThe RenaissancePaintingConstant (computer programming)MathematicsComputer scienceCalculus (dental)GeometryArt historyArtVisual artsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Golden ratio is often denoted by the Greek letter, usually in lower case, Phi (φ) which is an irrational mathematical constant, approximately 1.6180339887. Because of its unique and interesting properties, many mathematicians as well as renaissance artists and architects studied, documented and employed golden section proportions in remarkable works of sculpture, painting and architecture. Robot sizing especially for the Humanoid Robot, Phi is considered as the key to achieve the human friendly look. The ratio also plays an enigmatic role in the geometry and mathematics. The basic concept of golden ratio and its relation with the geometry are represented and described in this paper. The paper also explains about the structure and construction strategies of various dynamic rectangles by establishing some relations and dependencies with each other. The main contribution of the paper is to study about the validation and substantiation of the Equation of Phi based on classical geometric relations. The technique can be considered as an interesting strategy to prove the Equation of Phi.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.260
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