MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224237201 · doi:10.1117/12.2628084

Complex number and point-set topology

2022· article· en· W4224237201 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

VenueInternational Conference on Statistics, Applied Mathematics, and Computing Science (CSAMCS 2021) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTopology (electrical circuits)Set (abstract data type)Point (geometry)Euler characteristicComputer scienceEuler's formulaPath (computing)MathematicsContradictionSet theoryTheoretical computer scienceDiscrete mathematicsPure mathematicsCombinatoricsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Complex numbers, is an important part of modern mathematics. By using the complex number, we can solve many geometry problems. However, it can also be applied to physics. For example, it can play an important role in calculating alternating current. In this paper, we will introduce the definition and several properties of the complex number, also including the point-set topology. We try to prove the important theorems about the complex number; for instance, de Moivre's formula, the problems of connected set and path-connected set; also, the main idea that we cannot compare two complex numbers. To achieve these goals, we will use induction, Euler’s formula; the basic concept of topology, and proving by contradiction.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.267 · 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