MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109777202 · doi:10.1088/1361-6404/abce1f

Experimental test of fair three-sided coins

2020· article· en· W3109777202 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Physics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStatistical Mechanics and Entropy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimple (philosophy)Statement (logic)PhysicsCharacterization (materials science)Experimental dataBasis (linear algebra)RADIUSTest (biology)Statistical hypothesis testingAlgorithmCalculus (dental)Theoretical physicsApplied mathematicsMathematical economicsComputer scienceEpistemologyStatisticsGeometryMathematicsOpticsComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A simple model for a fair ‘three-sided coin’ is proposed and tested. Describing the coin as a cylinder with a given height and basis radius, this model efficiently characterizes the problem, constraining the size of the coin. A statistical analysis of the data collected from actual realizations of such coins has been performed, supporting the proposed model. Besides studying the case of a fair three-sided coin, this work represents a model for an explicit application of the scientific method, in which all parts (problem characterization, statement of a hypothesis, experiment, analysis, description, conclusions) have clearly directed its development. Thus, it represents an useful illustration of such method for undergraduate students.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.810
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.215 · 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