Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Eötvös Mathematics Competition is the oldest in the world for high school students organized on a national scale, with a tradition dating back to 1894. Four volumes have appeared in Hungarian, covering the periods 1894-1928, 1929-1963, 1964-1987 and 1988-1997. In 1949, the contest was renamed the Kürschák Mathematics Competition. In 1963, the New Mathematical Library published the translation of the first Hungarian volume in two books, titled The Hungarian Problem Book I and Book II . They are #11 and #12 in the series respectively. However, no further translations have appeared since then, even after the Mathematical Association of America took over the publication of the series. The delay is a long and involved story not worth recording. In 1995, I was approached by Underwood Dudley, then editor of the series, to work on Hungarian Problem Book III . I was both excited and apprehensive. My very limited knowledge of the Hungarian language was certainly not sufficient for the task. Fortunately, I had acquired over the years various documents in English and Chinese pertaining to this contest. János Csirik, a Hungarian graduate student in mathematics at the University of California, Berkeley, was on call via email whenever I had translation difficulties.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.017 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".