A study of fractional integral operators involving a certain generalized multi‐index Mittag‐Leffler function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivated by the demonstrated potential for their applications in various research areas such as those in mathematical, physical, engineering, and statistical sciences, our main object in this paper is to introduce and investigate a fractional integral operator that contains a certain generalized multi‐index Mittag‐Leffler function in its kernel. In particular, we establish some interesting expressions for the composition of such well‐known fractional integral and fractional derivative operators as (for example) the Riemann‐Liouville fractional integral and fractional derivative operators, the Hilfer fractional derivative operator, and the above‐mentioned fractional integral operator with the generalized multi‐index Mittag‐Leffler function in its kernel. The main findings in this paper are shown to generalize the results that were derived earlier by Kilbas et al and Srivastava et al. Finally, in this paper, we derive integral representations for the product of 2 generalized multi‐index Mittag‐Leffler functions in terms of the familiar Fox‐Wright hypergeometric function.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".