MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2185271417 · doi:10.37193/cjm.2013.01.15

Convergence theorems for fixed point iterative methods defined as admissible perturbations of a nonlinear operator

2013· article· en· W2185271417 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

VenueCarpathian Journal of Mathematics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicFixed Point Theorems Analysis
Canadian institutionsScience North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFixed pointMathematicsHilbert spaceNonlinear systemFixed-point theoremConvergence (economics)Applied mathematicsIterative methodOperator (biology)Perturbation (astronomy)Mathematical analysisPure mathematicsDiscrete mathematicsMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this paper is to prove some convergence theorems for a general fixed point iterative method defined by means of the new concept of admissible perturbation of a nonlinear operator, introduced in [Rus, I. A., An abstract point of view on iterative approximation of fixed points, Fixed Point Theory 13 (2012), No. 1, 179–192]. The obtained convergence theorems extend and unify some fundamental results in the iterative approximation of fixed points due to Petryshyn [Petryshyn, W. V., Construction of fixed points of demicompact mappings in Hilbert space, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 14 (1966), 276–284] and Browder and Petryshyn [Browder, F. E. and Petryshyn, W. V., Construction of fixed points of nonlinear mappings in Hilbert space, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 20 (1967), No. 2, 197–228].

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)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.313 · 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