MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6902686829 · doi:10.71712/7kj6-te73

Corrections, Improvements, and Comments on Some Gradshteyn and Ryzhik Integrals

2025· article· en· W6902686829 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueREVISTAS · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical functions and polynomials
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRange (aeronautics)Work (physics)Calculus (dental)Order of integration (calculus)Trigonometric integral

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we prove that two integrals from Gradshteyn and Ryzhik (2014) [1] (namely, Eqs. 3.937 1 and 3.937 2) provide incorrect results in certain conditions. We derive those conditions herein and provide the corrections required for those two formulas. We furthermore derive improved formulas for the solutions to those integrals that are less complicated, avoid the errors of the original formulas, and work under a larger range of parameter values. The improved formulas are used to verify the results of a few other related integrals from [1]; the previous results need correction in some instances, or are correct but can be extended in other instances. Lastly, we also consider the extended case of complex-valued parameters and derive the resulting formulas.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueREVISTASSame topicMathematical functions and polynomialsFrench-language works237,207