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

Anamorphoscopes another look at circle inverting mirrors

2011· article· en· W2415558843 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

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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