MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2277868817 · doi:10.1142/s179304211650130x

On a restricted linear congruence

2016· article· en· W2277868817 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

VenueInternational Journal of Number Theory · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Mathematical Identities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRamanujan's sumMathematicsSanderCongruence (geometry)Arithmetic functionCombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsAlgebra over a fieldPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text] be all positive divisors of [Formula: see text]. For [Formula: see text], define [Formula: see text]. In this paper, by combining ideas from the finite Fourier transform of arithmetic functions and Ramanujan sums, we give a short proof for the following result: the number of solutions of the linear congruence [Formula: see text], with [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text], is [Formula: see text] where [Formula: see text] is a Ramanujan sum. Some special cases and other forms of this problem have been already studied by several authors. The problem has recently found very interesting applications in number theory, combinatorics, computer science, and cryptography. The above explicit formula generalizes the main results of several papers, for example, the main result of the paper by Sander and Sander [J. Number Theory 133 (2013) 705–718], one of the main results of the paper by Sander [J. Number Theory 129 (2009) 2260–2266], and also gives an equivalent formula for the main result of the paper by Sun and Yang [Int. J. Number Theory 10 (2014) 1355–1363].

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.332 · 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