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 OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Jedwab, Matthew G. Parker

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 2a10b26c 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 16m+10 binary Golay pair from a related pair of Barker sequences of length 8m+5 and 8m+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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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

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

Citations18
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial DesignsSame topicgraph theory and CDMA systemsFrench-language works237,207