MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766081437 · doi:10.5539/jmr.v9n6p55

Various Proofs of the Sylvester Criterion for Quadratic Forms

2017· article· en· W2766081437 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Giorgio Giorgi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematics Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMatrix Theory and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematical proofMathematicsAlgebraic numberQuadratic equationSylvester matrixHomogeneousSubject (documents)Mathematics Subject ClassificationAlgebra over a fieldCalculus (dental)Pure mathematicsCombinatoricsMathematical analysisComputer sciencePolynomial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the first part of the paper we present several proofs of the so-called Sylvester criterion for quadratic forms; some of the said proofs are short and easy. In the second part of the paper we give an algebraic proof of the Sylvester criterion for quadratic forms subject to a linear homogeneous system.

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)0.008
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mathematics ResearchSame topicMatrix Theory and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207