MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334766273 · doi:10.1017/s0305004114000280

Nair–Tenenbaum uniform with respect to the discriminant–ERRATUM

2014· erratum· en· W2334766273 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Henriot

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2014
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAnalytic Number Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscriminantArgument (complex analysis)Divisor (algebraic geometry)WishMathematicsComputer scienceCalculus (dental)EpistemologyMathematical economicsPhilosophyArtificial intelligenceDiscrete mathematicsSociologyMedicineAnthropologyOrthodontics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this note we wish to correct several mistakes which appeared in our paper [1]. Fortunately, all the results claimed in that reference may be recovered, with small modifications to the statements and the argument. We are grateful to Nathan Ng for drawing our attention to an issue in the application of Theorem 6 to divisor sums, and to Régis de la Bretèche for helpful discussions on the problem addressed here.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.007

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations16
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical SocietySame topicAnalytic Number Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207