MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2415558843 · doi:10.1017/s0025557200002266

Anamorphoscopes another look at circle inverting mirrors

2011· article· en· W2415558843 on OpenAlexaff
John Sharp, B. G. Nickel, J. L. Hunt

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Mathematical Gazette · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchitecture and Art History Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConical surfaceInversion (geology)Transformation (genetics)OpticsCalculus (dental)PhysicsComputer scienceMathematicsGeometryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1979 Philip W. Kuchel published a paper [1] in the Mathematical Gazette on using curved mirrors as a means of demonstrating the transformation known as inversion in a circle. He called the mirrors ‘anamorphoscopes’ since he came to the idea as a special case of the conical mirror anamorphosis which was a popular optical toy from the seventeenth century onwards [2]. In this paper we revisit his ideas with current technology and provide some extensions to Kuchel's derivation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.132 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Mathematical GazetteSame topicArchitecture and Art History StudiesFrench-language works237,207