MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037753816 · doi:10.4153/cmb-2013-014-0

Camina Triples

2013· article· en· W3037753816 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nabil Mlaiki

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Mathematical Bulletin · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicFinite Group Theory Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsQuotientAbelian groupNilpotentGeneralizationPure mathematicsFrobenius groupCombinatoricsGroup (periodic table)Algebra over a fieldMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, we study Camina triples. Camina triples are a generalization of Camina pairs, first introduced in 1978 by A. R. Camina. Camina’s work was inspired by the study of Frobenius groups. We show that if ( G , N , M ) is a Camina triple, then either G / N is a p -group, or M is abelian, or M has a non-trivial nilpotent or Frobenius quotient.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score0.850

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1970.150

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Mathematical BulletinSame topicFinite Group Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207