MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998402533 · doi:10.1002/jcd.20036

Quintessential PBDs and PBDs with prime power block sizes ≥ 8

2004· article· en· W1998402533 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 · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topicgraph theory and CDMA systems
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrime (order theory)Prime powerCombinatoricsMathematicsPairwise comparisonSet (abstract data type)Block (permutation group theory)Coprime integersDiscrete mathematicsStatisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, we look at the existence of ( v K ) pairwise balanced designs (PBDs) for a few sets K of prime powers ≥ 8 and also for a number of subsets K of {5, 6, 7, 8, 9}, which contain {5}. For K = {5, 7}, {5, 8}, {5, 7, 9}, we reduce the largest v for which a ( v , K )‐PBD is unknown to 639, 812, and 179, respectively. When K is Q ≥8 , the set of all prime powers ≥ 8, we find several new designs for 1,180 ≤ v ≤ 1,270, and reduce the largest unsolved case to 1,802. For K = Q 0,1,5(8) , the set of prime powers ≥ 8 and ≡ 0, 1, or 5 (mod 8) we reduce the largest unknown case from 8,108 to 2,612. We also obtain slight improvements when K is one of {8, 9} or Q 0,1(8) , the set of prime powers ≡ 0 or 1 (mod 8). © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.187 · 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