Review††Edited by Adrian Rice and Scott WalterAll books, monographs, journal articles, and other publications (including films and other multisensory materials) relating to the history of mathematics are abstracted in the Abstracts Department. The Reviews Department prints extended reviews of selected publications.Materials for review, except books, should be sent to the Abstracts Editor, Glen Van Brummelen, Bennington College, Bennington, Vermont 05201, USA, or Sloan Despeaux, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC 28723, USA. Books in English for review should be sent to Adrian Rice, Department of Mathematics, Randolph-Macon College, Ashland, VA 23005-5505, USA. Books in other languages for review should be sent to Scott Walter, Université Nancy 2, LPHS-Archives Henri Poincaré, 23 bd Albert 1er, 54015 Nancy Cedex, France.Most reviews are solicited. However, colleagues wishing to review a book are invited to make their wishes known to the appropriate Book Review Editor. (Requests to review books written in the English language should be sent to Adrian Rice at the above address; requests to review books written in other languages should be sent to Scott Walter at the above address.) We also welcome retrospective reviews of older books. Colleagues interested in writing such reviews should consult first with the appropriate Book Review Editor (as indicated above, according to the language in which the book is written) to avoid duplication.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it