MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Metric theory of continued fractions

2014· book-chapter· en· W770938370 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan M. Borwein, Alf van der Poorten, Jeffrey Shallit, Wadim Zudilin

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2014
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicHistory and Theory of Mathematics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrrational numberTranscendental numberRational numberMathematicsQuotientMetric (unit)Real numberQuadratic equationPure mathematicsDiscrete mathematicsAlgebra over a fieldMathematical analysisEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The examples we saw in Chapters 1 and 2 suggest that real numbers are arithmetically quite diverse. The theory of continued fractions as we have developed it allows us to recognise whether a given real number is rational or is a quadratic irrational; for the latter as well as for several transcendental numbers such as e, whose quotients follow a clear periodic pattern, we have precise knowledge of the quality of their rational approximations, as for instance in (2.40).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.186 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicHistory and Theory of MathematicsFrench-language works237,207