MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987071938 · doi:10.1080/10511970108965982

CAN WE LEARN CALCULUS FROM A JERK?

2001· article· en· W1987071938 on OpenAlexaff
Paula L. Kenyon, Michael Bardzell

Bibliographic record

VenuePRIMUS · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicExperimental and Theoretical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJerkCalculus (dental)NicePrecalculusFinesseMathematicsComputer scienceAlgebra over a fieldAccelerationPure mathematicsMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we summarize an interdisciplinary undergraduate research project involving experimental physics and calculus. We illustrate how mathematics was used to finesse incomplete experimental information and maximize a physical quantity known as the jerk. The techniques of this project are an illustration of how calculus can be applied in the “real world” where functions are not always given by nice formulas. Some interesting issues related to the calculus reform movement are also noted.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.018
Scholarly communication0.0050.018
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePRIMUSSame topicExperimental and Theoretical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207