Generating relations and other results associated with some families of the extended Hurwitz-Lerch Zeta functions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Motivated essentially by recent works by several authors (see, for example, Bin-Saad [Math J Okayama Univ 49:37-52, 2007] and Katsurada [Publ Inst Math (Beograd) (Nouvelle Ser) 62(76):13-25, 1997], the main objective in this paper is to present a systematic investigation of numerous interesting properties of some families of generating functions and their partial sums which are associated with various classes of the extended Hurwitz-Lerch Zeta functions. Our main results would generalize and extend the aforementioned recent work by Bin-Saad [Math J Okayama Univ 49:37-52, 2007] (see also Katsurada [Publ Inst Math (Beograd) (Nouvelle Ser) 62(76):13-25, 1997]). We also show the hitherto unnoticed fact that the so-called τ-generalized Riemann Zeta function, which happens to be the main subject of investigation by Gupta and Kumari [Jñānābha 41:63-68, 2011]) and Saxena et al. [J Indian Acad Math 33:309-320, 2011], is simply a seemingly trivial notational variation of the familiar general Hurwitz-Lerch Zeta function Φ(z,s,a). Finally, we present a sum-integral representation formula for the general family of the extended Hurwitz-Lerch Zeta functions. 2010 MATHEMATICS SUBJECT CLASSIFICATION: Primary 11M25, 33C60; Secondary 33C05.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it