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 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

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.051
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