Bibliographic record
Abstract
In mathematical physics and beyond, one encounters many beautiful inequalities that relate geometric or physical quantities describing the shape or size of a set. Such isoperimetric inequalities often have a long history and many important applications. For instance, the eponymous and most classical of all isoperimetric inequalities was known already in antiquity. It asserts that among all closed planar curves of a given length, the circles with perimeter equal to that length, and only they, enclose the largest area. Though not nearly as well-known, an isoperimetric inequality conjectured by Saint-Venant in the 1850s and first proved by Pólya almost a century later, is also very beautiful and important. By presenting a short proof as well as two simple physical interpretations, this article illustrates why the result deserves to be cherished by every student of applied analysis.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".