MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158496755

Experimental Mathematics: Examples, Methods and Implications

2005· article· en· W2158496755 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicHistory and Theory of Mathematics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsField (mathematics)Computer scienceTest (biology)Algebraic numberAlgebra over a fieldAlgebraic topologySymbolic computationCalculus (dental)Mathematics educationMathematicsPure mathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent years have seen the flowering of 'experimental' mathematics,namely the utilization of modern computer technology as an active toolin mathematical research. This development is not limited to a handful of researchers, nor to a handful of universities, nor is it limited to one particular field of mathematics. Instead, it involves hundreds of individuals, at many different institutions, who have turned to the remarkable new computational tools now available to assist in their research, whether it be in number theory, algebra, analysis, geometry or even topology. These tools are being used to work out specific examples, generate plots, perform various algebraic and calculus manipulations, test conjectures, and explore routes to formal proof. Using computer tools to test conjectures is by itself a major time saver for mathematicians, as it permits them to quickly rule out false notions.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.266 · 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