MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806282807 · doi:10.5539/jmr.v10n4p54

Influence of Divisor-ratio to Distribution of Semiprime's Divisor

2018· article· en· W2806282807 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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 Mathematics Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicRings, Modules, and Algebras
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFoshan University
KeywordsDivisor (algebraic geometry)MathematicsSemiprimePrime factorPrime (order theory)Integer (computer science)CombinatoricsZero divisorDivisor functionMultipleInterval (graph theory)Distribution (mathematics)Discrete mathematicsArithmeticMathematical analysisComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For a semiprime that consists in two distinct odd prime divisors, this article makes an investigation on the distribution of the small divisor by analyzing the divisor-ratio that is calculated by the big divisor divided by the small one. It proves that, the small divisor must be a divisor of an odd integer lying in an interval that is uniquely determined by the divisor-ratio, and the length of the interval decreases exponentially with the increment of the ratio. Accordingly, a big divisor-ratio means the small divisor can be found in a small interval whereas a small divisor-ratio means it has to find the small divisor in a large interval. The proved theorems and corollaries can provide certain theoretical supports for finding out the small divisor of the semiprime.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.884

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.300 · 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