MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136337700

Pedagogical Justifications That Zero Factorial Equals One

2021· preprint· en· W3136337700 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Munir Mahmood, Lori L. Murray, Ričardas Zitikis, I. Mahmood

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistics Education and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCounterintuitiveFactorialZero (linguistics)Function (biology)Point (geometry)MathematicsAlgebraic numberEpistemologyMathematics educationPure mathematicsPhilosophyMathematical analysisLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Zero factorial, defined to be one, is often counterintuitive to students but nonetheless an interesting concept to convey in a classroom environment. The challenge is to delineate the concept in a simple and effective way. This article reveals and makes contribution to much simpler justifications on the notion of zero factorial to be one when compared to previous studies in the area. We note that the connection of zero factorial to the definition of the gamma function provides a first-hand conceptual understanding of the concept of zero factorial. But for the purpose of teaching, it is not particularly helpful from the pedagogical point of view in early years of study, as it is quite challenging to explain the rationale behind the origin of the definite integral that defines the gamma function. In this regard two algebraic and one statistical justification are presented. The squeeze theorem plays a pivotal role in this article. To assess the effectiveness of the justifications pedagogically, an online survey was conducted at a Canadian university.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.110
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.110
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.029
Scholarly communication0.0050.009
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.834
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.444 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicStatistics Education and MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207