MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

[ARTICLE] Extended Sine and Cosine Functions for Scalene Triangles (Canadian Journal of Mathematics Research / 2022) - GAMMA TRIGONOMETRY

2022· article· en· W6958067939 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematics and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSineTrigonometric functionsTrigonometryRobustness (evolution)Monotonic functionComputationParallelogramDifferentiation of trigonometric functions

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article pushes the role of sine and cosine functions beyond the traditional purpose of determining the sides of a right triangle, into the realm of determining the lengths of the sides of any triangle with practically the same ease. Extended functions are formulated dependent on two angles (instead of the traditional one) — sin*(α,γ) and cos*(α,γ) — that allow (via direct application) the computation of the lengths of the two shorter sides of a scalene triangle, as a result of the angular projection (from reference angle α and a variable obtuse angle γ) of the longer side or extended hypotenuse (for right triangles, the obtuse angle is fixed to γ= 90 deg, allowing only the variation of α — a significant limitation). When integrated into larger more complex mathematical formula, the extended sine and cosine functions add greater flexibility and open the door for the mathematician or scientist to explore possibilities that are non-orthogonal. Solved exercises are provided at the end, with the purpose of illustrating the robustness and advantage of the application of these new extended sine and cosine functions to determine the normalized sides of a scalene triangle — a requirement that is present virtually in any technical discipline.<br><b>Copyrights</b>Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).-------------------------------------------------------------------------For more public data, please visit my Figshare profile: https://figshare.com/authors/Luis_Teia/10811244

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.248
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.183 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicMathematics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207