MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2743724002 · doi:10.5539/jmr.v9n5p1

A Study on the Minimum and Maximum Sum of C2 Problem in IMO2014

2017· article· en· W2743724002 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Erick Ceasar Huang, Sharon Huang, Cheng-Hua Tsai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematics Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimization and Mathematical Programming
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsMathematical inductionMaximum principleMaximum cutSet (abstract data type)Sequence (biology)State (computer science)Mathematical optimizationDiscrete mathematicsCombinatoricsApplied mathematicsGraphComputer scienceAlgorithmOptimal control

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The focus of this paper is primarily on a problem: the principle of the extreme value under some special operations. After enumerating from the maximum sum to minimum and solving these cases, I found that the use of the two mathematical models enabled the derivation of the general form of the use of the two mathematical models enabled the derivation of the general form of the maximum and the minimum sum. This program looks into the principles of minimum and maximum sum, and the various patterns that come along with it. In order to further discuss this kind of problems, we set up other different conditions, solving them with two mathematical models and principle of sequence recursive relationship, induction proof, etc. We also extend all these problems to explore the generating functions of the maximum and the minimum sum with operating number m based on the parity of the number of papers. Finally, using computer generated software, we demonstrate the various sums of a particular state, along with coming up with a general rule for all states that can predict the maximum and the minimum sum through the usage of induction.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mathematics ResearchSame topicOptimization and Mathematical ProgrammingFrench-language works237,207