MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213288448 · doi:10.2140/obs.2019.2.7

Preface

2019· article· en· W4213288448 on OpenAlexafffund
Renate Scheidler, Jonathan Sorenson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Open Book Series · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicHistory and Theory of Mathematics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of California, San DiegoDebreceni EgyetemEwha Womans UniversityUniversity of New South WalesGrinnell CollegeNational Security AgencyIllinois Wesleyan UniversityUniversity of BristolPacific Institute for the Mathematical SciencesAmerican Mathematical SocietyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonInstitut national de recherche en informatique et en automatique (INRIA)National Science FoundationDivision of Mathematical SciencesUniversity of LethbridgeUniversity of WarwickUniversity of WaterlooButler University
KeywordsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The biennial, international Algorithmic Number Theory Symposium (ANTS) provides the premier international forum for state-of-the-art research in computational and algorithmic number theory.This conference is devoted to algorithmic aspects of all branches of number theory, including elementary number theory, algebraic number theory, analytic number theory, geometry of numbers, arithmetic algebraic geometry, finite fields, and cryptography.ANTS-XIII, the thirteenth meeting in the Algorithmic Number Theory Symposia series, was held July 16-20, 2018, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.This volume contains the 28 contributed papers that were presented at the conference; each paper was presented by one of the paper's authors.These 28 papers were selected from 48 submissions through a double-blind refereeing process, where the program committee solicited a minimum of two expert referees for each paper.In addition to the contributed papers, the conference featured five invited plenary speakers, a poster session on the afternoon of July 17, and a rump session on the afternoon of July 19.The organizing committee encouraged participation by women and underrepresented minorities.The 109 people who attended represented 13 countries.About 38% of the attendees were graduate or undergraduate students, and about 26% identified as female.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Open Book SeriesSame topicHistory and Theory of MathematicsFrench-language works237,207