MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2570717844 · doi:10.1002/jcd.21566

Transversals in Latin Arrays with Many Distinct Symbols

2017· article· en· W2570717844 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
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

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Designs · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topicgraph theory and CDMA systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTransversal (combinatorics)Latin squareRowTransposeMathematicsRow and column spacesCombinatoricsDiagonalOrder (exchange)ComputationAlgorithmComputer scienceGeometryPhysicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An array is row‐Latin if no symbol is repeated within any row. An array is Latin if it and its transpose are both row‐Latin. A transversal in an array is a selection of n different symbols from different rows and different columns. We prove that every Latin array containing at least distinct symbols has a transversal. Also, every row‐Latin array containing at least distinct symbols has a transversal. Finally, we show by computation that every Latin array of order 7 has a transversal, and we describe all smaller Latin arrays that have no transversal.

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)0.000
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 score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.207 · 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