Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Algorithmic Number Theory Symposium (ANTS) meetings are held bianually since 1994, and have become the premier international forum for the presentation of new research in Computational Number Theory. Previous ANTS conferences have been held as follows: ANTS I, 1994, Cornell University, USA, ANTS II, 1996, University of Bordeaux, France, ANTS III, 1998 Reed College, USA, ANTS IV, 2000, University of Leiden, Netherlands, ANTS V, 2002, University of Sydney, Australia. ANTS VI was held on June 13-18, 2004 at the University of Vermont in the United States, http://web.ew.usna.edu/~ants. ANTS VII is scheduled to be held in Berlin in the summer of 2006. Below are six poster abstracts presented during ANTS VI. We thank the organizers for the opportunity to publish the ANTS VI posters. We hope to help bring this work to a wider audience, not only to computational number theorists, but throughout the Symbolic Computation community.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.337 | 0.325 |
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".