MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2902410187 · doi:10.5539/jmr.v10n6p91

Visualising Complex Polynomials: A Parabola Is but a Drop in the Ocean of Quadratics

2018· article· en· W2902410187 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
TopicAdvanced Mathematical Theories
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsParabolaParaboloidQuadratic equationComplex quadratic polynomialQuadratic functionPolynomialComplex planePure mathematicsMathematical analysisGeometrySurface (topology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the problems encountered when teaching complex numbers arises from an inability to visualise the complex roots, the so-called "imaginary" roots of a polynomial. Being four dimensional, it is problematic to visualize graphs and roots of polynomials with complex coefficients in spite of many attempts through centuries. An innovative way is described to visualize the graphs and roots of functions, by restricting the domain of the complex function to those complex numbers that map onto real values, leading to the concept of three dimensional sibling curves. Using this approach we see that a parabola is but a singular case of a complex quadratic.  We see that sibling curves of a complex quadratic lie on a three-dimensional hyperbolic paraboloid. Finally, we show that the restriction to a real range causes no loss of generality.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.432
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.122 · 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