MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075668496 · doi:10.1002/jcd.20108

Orthogonal designs via computational algebra

2006· article· en· W2075668496 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 · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topicgraph theory and CDMA systems
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsOrthogonal arrayHadamard matrixQuaternionHadamard transformOrder (exchange)Orthogonal matrixCombinatoricsMatrix (chemical analysis)Complex Hadamard matrixClifford algebraAlgebra over a fieldQuaternion algebraAnalogyPure mathematicsOrthogonal basisDivision algebraGeometryAlgebra representationMathematical analysisTaguchi methods

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We detail the Williamson array construction based on quaternions, following the description by Baumert and Hall. By analogy, we extend the construction to larger arrays using matrix representations of the algebras of octonions and sedenions. In the case of octonions, we obtain the full orthogonal design OD (8;1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1) or order 8 with 8 variables. In the case of sedenions we obtain the full orthogonal design OD (16;1,1,7,7) of order 16 with 4 variables and the full orthogonal design OD (16;1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2) of order 16 with 9 variables. We use OD (16;1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2) to search for inequivalent Hadamard matrices of orders 112, 144, 176 and we establish constructively three new lower bounds for the numbers of inequivalent Hadamard matrices of these three orders. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Combin Designs 14: 351–362, 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.197 · 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