MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285092299 · doi:10.3390/math10142433

Monotonicity Results for Nabla Riemann–Liouville Fractional Differences

2022· article· en· W4285092299 on OpenAlexaff
Pshtiwan Othman Mohammed, H. M. Srivastava, Dumitru Bǎleanu, Rashid Jan, Khadijah M. Abualnaja

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicFractional Differential Equations Solutions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNabla symbolMonotonic functionType (biology)MathematicsInteger (computer science)Fractional calculusPure mathematicsRiemann hypothesisMathematical analysisApplied mathematicsPhysicsComputer scienceOmega

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Positivity analysis is used with some basic conditions to analyse monotonicity across all discrete fractional disciplines. This article addresses the monotonicity of the discrete nabla fractional differences of the Riemann–Liouville type by considering the positivity of ∇b0RLθg(z) combined with a condition on g(b0+2), g(b0+3) and g(b0+4), successively. The article ends with a relationship between the discrete nabla fractional and integer differences of the Riemann–Liouville type, which serves to show the monotonicity of the discrete fractional difference ∇b0RLθg(z).

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 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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.617
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematicsSame topicFractional Differential Equations SolutionsFrench-language works237,207