MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129207091 · doi:10.1017/s0269889703000851

Egyptian Mathematical Texts and Their Contexts

2003· article· en· W2129207091 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

VenueScience in Context · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicHistory and Theory of Mathematics
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtant taxonPapyrusMathematical theoryMathematical statisticsComputer scienceOrder (exchange)Mathematical problemMathematicsHistoryMathematics educationClassicsStatisticsBiologyEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ArgumentThe extant sources for ancient Egyptian mathematics are extremely limited. It is therefore necessary to read the few sources carefully and use additional information from further Egyptian sources in order to achieve the most detailed picture possible. Traditional approaches to Egyptian mathematics have provided only a superficial account of mathematical practices and almost no information about the role of mathematics within Egyptian culture. To enlarge our knowledge it is crucial to use a different methodological approach in the analysis of ancient mathematical techniques. In addition, it is indispensable to contextualize the mathematical problems with sources that are not specifically mathematical per se. In this article I discuss several possibilities for these additional sources, such as administrative texts, reliefs found in tombs, and other archaeological evidence. I exemplify the use of these sources with two problems from the Moscow mathematical papyrus.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.262 · 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