MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7100751836

CONTEMPORARY METHODS FOR SOLVING DIOPHANTINE EQUATIONS MICHAEL BENNETT (UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA)

2013· article· en· W7100751836 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic Geometry and Number Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiophantine equationDiophantine setDiophantine geometrySet (abstract data type)Rational numberAlgebra over a fieldMathematical structureMathematical model
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The topic of this summer school was Diophantine equations, which are among the oldest studied mathematical objects. A Diophantine equation is an equation where admissible solutions are restricted to the rationals or the integers, or appropriate mathematical generalizations of such objects. The equations themselves tend to be polynomial, exponential, or a mixture of both, where variables in the exponents are usually restricted to (positive) integers. A characteristic example is the equation that is central to Fermat’s Last Theorem, x n + y n = z n, with x, y, z ∈ Z and n ∈ {3, 4,...}. Because Diophantine equations concern themselves with objects so fundamental to mathematics, they tend to arise whenever one uses the mathematical language to formulate problems or theories. This supplies a dual motivation to the field. On the one hand, there is an interest to understand theoretically the set of solutions to the equations and its relationship to the geometric objects defined by the equations. On the other hand, there is a demand for practical methods that, given an explicit equation, provide a complete and explicit description of the set of solutions. In recent years, a combination of development of general theory, computational tools and computational techniques has greatly improved our ability to

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.005

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAlgebraic Geometry and Number Theory→French-language works237,207→