MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993163310 · doi:10.1002/jcd.20086

Common intersection designs

2005· article· en· W1993163310 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

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Designs · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topicgraph theory and CDMA systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntersection (aeronautics)Disjoint setsMathematicsCombinatorial designBlock (permutation group theory)Set (abstract data type)Block designCombinatoricsFunction (biology)Discrete mathematicsComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Motivated by an application to sensor networks, Lee and Stinson [ 6 ] defined a new type of set system termed a “common intersection design.” Briefly, a µ‐common intersection design is a 1‐design in which no pair of points occurs in more than one block, and in which any two disjoint blocks intersect at least µ blocks in common. In general, we want to maximize µ as a function of the other parmameters of the design. In this paper, we analyze combinatorial properties of common intersection designs. We determine necessary conditions for “optimal” common intersection designs and provide several existence results. Connections with other types of designs are pointed out. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Combin Designs 14: 251–269, 2006

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.215 · 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