MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250318618 · doi:10.37193/cjm.2015.03.03

A constructive approach to coupled fixed point theorems in metric spaces

2015· article· en· W4250318618 on OpenAlexaff
Vasile Berinde, Mădălina Pačurar

Bibliographic record

VenueCarpathian Journal of Mathematics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicFixed Point Theorems Analysis
Canadian institutionsScience North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUniquenessMathematicsFixed pointConstructiveFixed-point theoremIterative methodType (biology)Metric spaceFixed-point iterationApplied mathematicsPure mathematicsPoint (geometry)Discrete mathematicsMathematical analysisAlgorithmComputer scienceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we establish the existence and uniqueness of a coupled fixed point for operators F : X × X → X satisfying a new type of contractive condition, which is weaker than all the corresponding ones studied in literature so far. We also provide constructive features to our coupled fixed point results by proving that the unique coupled fixed point of F can be approximated by means of two distinct iterative methods: a Picard type iterative method of the form xn+1 = F(xn, xn), n ≥ 0, with x0 ∈ X, as well as a two step iterative method of the form yn+1 = F(yn−1, yn), n ≥ 0, with y0, y1 ∈ X. We also give appropriate error estimates for both iterative methods. Essentially we point out that all coupled fixed point theorems existing in literature, that establish the existence and uniqueness of a coupled fixed point with equal components, could be derived in a much more simpler manner.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.242 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCarpathian Journal of MathematicsSame topicFixed Point Theorems AnalysisFrench-language works237,207