MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3116903618 · doi:10.12697/acutm.2011.15.04

Polynomial expansions via embedded Pascal’s triangles

2011· article· en· W3116903618 on OpenAlexaff
Serge B. Provost, Wajdi Mohamed Ratemi

Bibliographic record

VenueActa et Commentationes Universitatis Tartuensis de Mathematica · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNumerical Methods and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonomialMathematicsPascal (unit)Symbolic computationBinomial coefficientCombinatoricsExtension (predicate logic)ComputationPolynomialRowAlgebra over a fieldPure mathematicsAlgorithmMathematical analysisComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An expansion is given for polynomials of the form (ω + λ1) · · ·(ω +λn). The coefficients of the resulting polynomials are related to their roots, and a system of equations that enables one to numericallydetermine the roots in terms of the coefficients is specified. The case where all the roots λi are equal is considered as well. A multinomial extension to polynomials of the form (x1+ · · · + xI )n is then provided. As it turns out, the coefficients of the monomials contained in the resulting polynomial expansion can be determined in terms of the coefficients of the monomials included in the expansion of (x1+ · · · + xI-1 )n and the rows of embedded Pascal’s triangles of successive orders. An algorithm is provided for generating and concatenating these rows, with the particulars of its implementation by means of the symbolic computation software Mathematica being discussed as well. Potential applications of such expansions to combinatorics and genomics are also suggested.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.004

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.236 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa et Commentationes Universitatis Tartuensis de MathematicaSame topicNumerical Methods and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207