MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7101017904

Abstract A proof of Bondy’s Theorem following Bollobas [1].

2015· article· en· W7101017904 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicScience Education and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpenPGP cardSmart cardJava CardSmart card application protocol data unitContactless smart cardCard security code
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

begin lemma card-less-if-surj-not-inj: [ [ finite A; f ‘ A = B; ¬ inj-on f A]] = ⇒ card B < card A by (metis assms card-image-le inj-on-iff-eq-card order-le-neq-trans) theorem Bondy: assumes ∀A ∈ F. A ⊆ X and card X ≥ 1 and card F = card X shows ∃D. D ⊆ X & card D < card X & card (inter D ‘ F) = card F proof − from assms(2,3) have finite F and finite X by (metis card-infinite not-one-le-zero)+ { fix m have m < card F = ⇒ ∃D. D ⊆ X & card D ≤ m & card (inter D ‘ F) ≥ m + 1 proof (induction m) case 0 hence {} ⊆ X & card {} ≤ 0 & card (inter {} ‘ F) ≥ 0 + 1 by auto (metis Suc-leI card-eq-0-iff empty-is-image finite-imageI gr0I) thus ∃D. (D ⊆ X & card D ≤ 0 & card (inter D ‘ F) ≥ 0 + 1) by blast next case (Suc m) hence m < card F by arith with Suc.IH obtain D where D: D ⊆ X ∧ card D ≤ m ∧ m + 1 ≤ card (inter D ‘ F) by auto with 〈finite X 〉 have finite D by (auto intro: finite-subset) show?case proof (cases card (inter D ‘ F) = card F) case True hence D ⊆ X ∧ card D ≤ Suc m ∧ Suc m + 1 ≤ card(inter D ‘ F) using D Suc.prems by auto thus?thesis by blast next 1 case False hence ∼ inj-on (inter D) F by (auto simp: card-image) then obtain A1 A2 where A1 ∈ F and A2 ∈ F and

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.009
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1320.042

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.295 · 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
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicScience Education and PerceptionsFrench-language works237,207