MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224283814 · doi:10.1117/12.2627652

Research on polygonal numbers

2022· article· en· W4224283814 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
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Mathematical Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSquare (algebra)Integer (computer science)MathematicsCombinatoricsGaussReal numberFocus (optics)Discrete mathematicsNumber theoryComputer scienceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper serves as a collection of research(done by other mathematicians) on polygonal numbers as well as their corresponding theorem proof summary proved by other mathematicians. This paper mainly reviews triangular numbers, square numbers, Gauss's Triangular Number Theorem, Lagrange’s Four-Square Theorem, Cauchy’s Polygonal Number Theorem, Fermat’s Polygonal Number Theorem. This composition also briefly reviews topics regarding Waring’s problem and sum of three cubes. The conclusion is that mathematicians have proved that any positive integer can be decomposed as a fixed number of “2-dimensional” polygonal numbers, such as triangular, square, pentagonal numbers and so on. Later studies related to polygonal numbers will focus on “higher dimensional” polygonal numbers, such as cubic numbers.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.282 · 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