MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Modern Approach: Oblique Triangles

2017· book-chapter· en· W2479551054 on OpenAlex
Glen Van Brummelen

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePrinceton University Press eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematics and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOblique caseGeologyGeometryComputer scienceMathematicsPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter discusses the modern approach to solving oblique triangles. Two important theorems about planar oblique triangles are the spherical and planar Law of Sines and the Law of Cosines, which is an extension of the Pythagorean Theorem applied to oblique triangles. Book I of Euclid's <italic>Elements</italic> deals primarily with the Pythagorean Theorem (Proposition 47) and its converse (Proposition 48), while Book II contains theorems that may be translated directly into various algebraic statements. The chapter considers two of the last three theorems of Book II: Proposition 12, which deals with obtuse-angled triangles, and Proposition 13, which is concerned with acute-angled triangles. It also extends the Law of Cosines to the sphere and uses it to solve astronomical and geographical problems, such as finding the distance from Vancouver to Edmonton. Finally, it describes Delambre's analogies and Napier's analogies.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.150 · 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