MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899563407 · doi:10.1080/00029890.2018.1503003

Everything You Wanted To Know About <i>ax</i><sup>2</sup>+<i>by</i><sup>2</sup>+<i>cz</i><sup>2</sup>+<i>dt</i><sup>2</sup> But Were Afraid To Ask

2018· article· en· W2899563407 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth S. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Mathematical Monthly · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAnalytic Number Theory Research
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersSlovak Academic Information Agency
KeywordsCombinatoricsPhysicsNatural numberMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lagrange’s theorem tells us that the quadratic form represents all positive integers. What about the more general form , where a, b, c, and d are positive integers? We provide a gentle introduction to this question by posing and answering some natural questions about the possible integers that can represent.

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0070.004
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.021

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.283 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Mathematical MonthlySame topicAnalytic Number Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207