MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154455600 · doi:10.1145/565145.565149

The <i>n</i> th derivative

2002· article· en· W2154455600 on OpenAlexaff
Mhenni M. Benghorbal, Robert M. Corless

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGSAM Bulletin · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMapleFormal power seriesTaylor seriesDerivative (finance)MathematicsSeries (stratigraphy)Elementary functionFunction (biology)Power seriesVariable (mathematics)Algebra over a fieldCombinatoricsMathematical inductionSymbolic computationCalculus (dental)Discrete mathematicsPure mathematicsArithmeticMathematical analysisGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The following problem is one that many first year calculus students find quite difficult:Given a formula for a function f in a variable x, find a formula for its n th derivative. Example 1.1: [1, p. 229] If f ( x ) = x m , (1)then its n th derivative is f ( n ) ( x ) = m- n x m-n , (2)where m- n = m ( m - 1) ( m - 2) ⋅⋅⋅ ( m - n + 1).The difficulties for students include, first, the discovery of a formula valid for all integers n and, second, the proof (for example, by induction) that the formula is correct. Can computer algebra systems do better?It is certain that Macsyma could (we remember commands for infinite Taylor series expansion of elementary functions, and that necessarily involves discovering a correct formula for the n th derivative of the input). Currently, Maple cannot---at least, not without help, just with one command, now that the Formal Power Series package in the share library is no longer supported.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.010
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.007

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGSAM BulletinSame topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207