MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999801607 · doi:10.1002/jcd.20222

A construction of binary Golay sequence pairs from odd‐length Barker sequences

2009· article· en· W1999801607 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 · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topicgraph theory and CDMA systems
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBinary Golay codeMathematicsCombinatoricsComplementary sequencesSequence (biology)Binary numberPseudorandom binary sequenceArithmeticStatisticsBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Binary Golay sequence pairs exist for lengths 2, 10 and 26 and, by Turyn's product construction, for all lengths of the form 2 a 10 b 26 c where a, b, c are non‐negative integers. Computer search has shown that all inequivalent binary Golay sequence pairs of length less than 100 can be constructed from five “seed” pairs, of length 2, 10, 10, 20 and 26. We give the first complete explanation of the origin of the length 26 binary Golay seed pair, involving a Barker sequence of length 13 and a related Barker sequence of length 11. This is the special case m =1 of a general construction for a length 16 m +10 binary Golay pair from a related pair of Barker sequences of length 8 m +5 and 8 m +3, for integer m ≥0. In the case m =0, we obtain an alternative explanation of the origin of one of the length 10 binary Golay seed pairs. The construction cannot produce binary Golay sequence pairs for m >1, having length greater than 26, because there are no Barker sequences of odd length greater than 13. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Combin Designs 17: 478–491, 2009

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

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 head0.229
Teacher spread0.209 · 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