MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319764368 · doi:10.4153/cjm-2011-066-0

The H and K Family of Mock Theta Functions

2011· article· en· W2319764368 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

VenueCanadian Journal of Mathematics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Mathematical Identities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsRamanujan theta functionRamanujan's sumOrder (exchange)Pure mathematicsModular formRational functionRoot of unityExponential functionTheta functionCombinatoricsFunction (biology)Entire functionMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In his last letter to Hardy, Ramanujan defined 17 functions F ( q ), | q | < 1, which he calledmock θ -functions. He observed that as q radially approaches any root of unity ζ at which F ( q ) has an exponential singularity, there is a θ -function T ζ ( q ) with F ( q ) − T ζ ( q ) = O (1). Since then, other functions have been found that possess this property. These functions are related to a function H ( x , q ), where x is usually q r or e 2π ir for some rational number r . For this reason we refer to H as a “universal” mock θ -function. Modular transformations of H give rise to the functions K , K 1 , K 2. The functions K and K 1 appear in Ramanujan's lost notebook. We prove various linear relations between these functions using Appell–Lerch sums (also called generalized Lambert series). Some relations (mock theta “conjectures”) involving mock θ -functions of even order and H are listed.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.179 · 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