Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recursive formulae satisfied by the Fourier coefficients of meromorphic modular forms on groups of genus zero have been investigated by several authors. Bruinieret al. [‘The arithmetic of the values of modular functions and the divisors of modular forms’,Compositio Math.140(3) (2004), 552–566] found recurrences for SL(2,ℤ); Ahlgren [‘The theta-operator and the divisors of modular forms on genus zero subgroups’,Math. Res. Lett.10(5–6) (2003), 787–798] investigated the groups Γ0(p); Atkinson [‘Divisors of modular forms on Γ0(4)’,J. Number Theory112(1) (2005), 189–204] considered Γ0(4), and S. Y. Choi [‘The values of modular functions and modular forms’,Canad. Math. Bull.49(4) (2006), 526–535] found the corresponding formulae for the groups Γ+0(p). In this paper we generalize these results and find recursive formulae for the Fourier coefficients of any meromorphic modular formfon any genus-zero group Γ commensurable with SL(2,ℤ) , including noncongruence groups and expansions at irregular cusps. The form of the recurrence relations is well suited for the computation of the Fourier coefficients of the functions and forms on the groups which occur in monstrous and generalized moonshine. The required initial data has, in many cases, been computed by Norton (private communication).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".