Tarefa paper_repro.fujiwara_2015.tab2_pa_valid98_c2.agent

Veredito

Pergunta feita ao analista

Fujiwara, T. (2015), 'Voting Technology, Political Responsiveness, and Infant Health: Evidence from Brazil', Table II, Panel A, column (2): estimate the jump in valid votes as a share of turnout in the 1998 state legislature elections at the threshold of 40,500 registered voters in 1996, above which municipalities voted electronically in the 1998 elections, as a sharp regression discontinuity. Use a local linear regression on each side of the threshold with a rectangular kernel (unweighted observations), a bandwidth of 10,000 registered voters, and heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors. Report the jump at the threshold.

Valores esperados e de onde vêm

Verificações

Caminho de referência e caminho do agente

A chamada de referência ao lado da chamada que deu a resposta, argumento por argumento.

Trajetória

Cada evento na ordem em que aconteceu: turnos do modelo, chamadas de ferramentas, guardas, transformações e pontuação.

1. 0Início

   Fujiwara, T. (2015), 'Voting Technology, Political Responsiveness, and Infant Health: Evidence from Brazil', Table II, Panel A, column (2): estimate the jump in valid votes as a share of turnout in the 1998 state legislature elections at the threshold of 40,500 registered voters in 1996, above which municipalities voted electronically in the 1998 elections, as a sharp regression discontinuity. Use a local linear regression on each side of the threshold with a rectangular kernel (unweighted observations), a bandwidth of 10,000 registered voters, and heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors. Report the jump at the threshold.

   munic (agent)

   The author's municipality file for Fujiwara (2015), 'Voting Technology, Political Responsiveness, and Infant Health: Evidence from Brazil': one row per Brazilian municipality (5,281 rows). In the 1998 elections, municipalities with more than 40,500 registered voters in 1996 used electronic voting and the others paper ballots; in 1994 every municipality used paper ballots and in 2002 every one voted electronically. Columns: uf, state; voters96, number of registered voters in 1996; r_util98, r_util94, r_util02, valid votes as a share of turnout in the state legislature elections of 1998, 1994 and 2002; attend, turnout as a share of registered voters (1998); regist, registered voters as a share of population (1998); null_est_share and blank_est_share, null and blank votes as a share of turnout (state legislature, 1998); util_pres_share, util_gov_share, util_fed_share, util_sen_share, valid votes as a share of turnout in the presidential, gubernatorial, federal lower chamber and senate elections (1998); right, vote-weighted party ideology; right_meas, votes for parties with measured ideology over total valid votes; right_state, state average of right; illiter, illiteracy rate (percent); less4 and less8, shares without 4 and without 8 years of schooling; gini, Gini index; income, monthly income; latitude; longitude; urbanization, share of urban population; population91 and population00, population in 1991 and 2000 (thousands). The schooling, income, inequality and urbanization variables come from the 1991 census.

   file 5cd5b8796355e025807dc303263b1fbb16f442c3c7551f14ee3557768a310894 · frame —
2. 1Turno do modelo
   call_946a5d4dgemini-3.8-flashFim: STOP8.620 ms14848 de entrada · 107 de saída · 330 de raciocínio · 0 em cache

   Texto visível

   I will estimate the sharp regression discontinuity jump in valid votes share at the threshold of 40,500 registered voters using a uniform kernel, bandwidth of 10,000, and local linear regression.

   Resumo do raciocínio, como declarado pelo modelo

   **My Thought Process for Replicating Fujiwara (2015), Table II, Panel A, Column (2)** My objective is quite specific: I need to precisely replicate the estimation presented in Table II, Panel A, column (2) of the Fujiwara (2015) paper. The description clearly outlines the task: estimating the jump in the share of valid votes out of total turnout in the 1998 state legislature elections. This estimation is to be conducted at a sharp regression discontinuity (RD) threshold defined by 40,500 registered voters in 1996. Municipalities exceeding this threshold adopted electronic voting in 1998, which is the treatment assignment variable. The paper specifies the methodological details I must adhere to: * **Estimation Method:** A local linear regression on either side of the threshold. * **Kernel:** A rectangular kernel, which translates to unweighted observations within the bandwidth. * **Bandwidth:** A bandwidth of 10,000 registered voters. * **Standard Errors:** Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors are required. * **Output:** The final reported value should be the estimated jump at the threshold. Now, I need to map these requirements to the available tools. I've identified the `infer__rdd` function as the primary tool for this RD estimation. Let's break down how I'll configure it: * **Dataset:** The data I'll be working with is `'munic'`. * **Outcome Variable (`y`):** The paper specifies "valid votes as a share of turnout in the 1998 state legislature elections." Based on common naming conventions in such datasets, I anticipate this variable to be `r_util98`. * **Running Variable (`running`):** This is the variable that determines treatment assignment, which is "registered voters in 1996." I expect this to be named `voters96`. * **Cutoff (`cutoff`):** The threshold is clearly stated as 40,500 registered voters, so `cutoff = 40500`. * **Bandwidth (`bandwidth`):** The paper mandates a bandwidth of 10,000 registered voters, so `bandwidth = 10000`. * **Kernel (`kernel`):** The "rectangular kernel" is synonymous with a "uniform" kernel in RD analysis, so I'll set `kernel = "uniform"`. * **Polynomial (`polynomial`):** "Local linear regression" directly translates to `polynomial = 1`. * **Confidence Level (`level`):** While not explicitly stated for the final *reported jump*, standard practice and reporting conventions often involve a 95% confidence interval, so I'll set `level = 0.95` as a default, and the function should then report the jump and its confidence interval. Before I proceed with the `infer__rdd` estimation, a crucial diagnostic step comes to mind: the density test. A strong density test result is fundamental for the validity of RD designs, as it helps rule out manipulation of the running variable around the cutoff. Therefore, I should also check if I can run `infer__density_test` to ensure the data meets the assumptions of the RD approach. This would be a thorough check of the diagnostics. However, given the prompt's focus on the immediate execution of the estimation task as described, my first action will be to run `infer__rdd` with the parameters I've carefully mapped. The density test can be a subsequent step if required for a full robustness check or if the initial RD results warrant further scrutiny.

   Chamadas pedidas

   • infer.rdd

     {
       "bandwidth": 10000,
       "cutoff": 40500,
       "dataset": "munic",
       "kernel": "uniform",
       "polynomial": 1,
       "running": "voters96",
       "y": "r_util98"
     }

   Prompt exatoInstruções do sistemaFerramentas oferecidasResposta bruta
3. 2Ferramenta
   infer.rddv0.1.0call_3e122e11decidido pelo modeloreexecutável

   Motivo: I will estimate the sharp regression discontinuity jump in valid votes share at the threshold of 40,500 registered voters using a uniform kernel, bandwidth of 10,000, and local linear regression.

   Argumentos

   {
     "bandwidth": 10000,
     "cluster": null,
     "cutoff": 40500,
     "dataset": "munic",
     "kernel": "uniform",
     "level": 0.95,
     "polynomial": 1,
     "running": "voters96",
     "subset": null,
     "y": "r_util98"
   }

   Figuras call_3e122e11

   Chave	Valor	Valor bruto	Erro-padrão	IC
   effect Jump in r_util98 at the cutoff of voters96	0,121282	0.12128157455040935	0,01597280.015972820289750132	0,0899754 – 0,152588

   Diagnósticos

   • bandwidth = 10.00010000
   • bandwidth_method = "user"
   • n_left = 151151
   • n_right = 7878
   • kernel = "uniform"
   • polynomial = 11
   • bandwidth_sensitive = false
   • n_obs = 5.2815281
   • se_type = "HC1"

   Tabelas (1)

   {
     "sensitivity": [
       {
         "bandwidth": 5000,
         "ci_high": 0.1730692435662713,
         "ci_low": 0.07411927604798471,
         "estimate": 0.123594259807128,
         "multiplier": 0.5,
         "n_left": 75,
         "n_right": 41,
         "se": 0.02524280249504361
       },
       {
         "bandwidth": 10000,
         "ci_high": 0.15258772704985024,
         "ci_low": 0.08997542205096845,
         "estimate": 0.12128157455040935,
         "multiplier": 1,
         "n_left": 151,
         "n_right": 78,
         "se": 0.015972820289750132
       },
       {
         "bandwidth": 20000,
         "ci_high": 0.15000295828723778,
         "ci_low": 0.10603984912383449,
         "estimate": 0.12802140370553614,
         "multiplier": 2,
         "n_left": 428,
         "n_right": 130,
         "se": 0.011215284951707961
       }
     ]
   }

   Digests dos dados

   munic 4849fb53b02d5e1e529b6e802d6e90e871843cf5f89da8ad229cd022bbd01f2e

   sha256 do resultado

   d13bc2b7d2352cad2d5c23896af413c94ffa1f09021f4dd92eea2045a577c903

   Resultado mostrado ao modelo
4. 3Turno do modelo
   call_88060327gemini-3.8-flashFim: STOP4.497 ms15663 de entrada · 66 de saída · 36 de raciocínio · 12616 em cache

   Texto visível

   I will run McCrary's density test at the 40,500 cutoff to check for potential sorting or manipulation of the running variable.

   Resumo do raciocínio, como declarado pelo modelo

   **My Thought Process on `infer__density_test` and Cutoff 40500** My current focus is on ensuring the robustness and integrity of our data processing pipeline, specifically concerning the `infer__density_test`. To that end, I've decided it's crucial to run this test with a cutoff value set at 40500. My rationale for this specific action stems from two key considerations: RD guidelines and general good practice in data manipulation. Firstly, the RD guidelines are clear on the importance of validating sorting and any subsequent manipulation of data. Running `infer__density_test` at this cutoff will allow me to directly assess how our system handles data points around this specific threshold. If there are any subtle issues with how data is being ordered or altered, particularly as it approaches or crosses this value, this test should reveal them. This is essential for maintaining compliance and ensuring that our data processing adheres to the stringent requirements set forth. Secondly, beyond regulatory compliance, this is simply a matter of sound data hygiene. Choosing a specific, significant cutoff like 40500 provides a well-defined point of examination. It allows me to systematically probe the behavior of the `infer__density_test` under conditions that are likely to stress its sorting and manipulation logic. By testing at this boundary, I can gain confidence that the underlying algorithms are behaving predictably and correctly, regardless of the specific data values. It's a proactive measure to catch potential edge cases or subtle bugs that might otherwise go unnoticed until they impact downstream processes or analysis. In essence, this test run is a targeted diagnostic. I'm not just running it for the sake of it; I'm deliberately choosing a specific parameter (cutoff 40500) to rigorously test the critical aspects of sorting and manipulation within our `infer__density_test` framework, thereby upholding both compliance standards and my commitment to high-quality data processing.

   Chamadas pedidas

   • infer.density_test

     {
       "cutoff": 40500,
       "dataset": "munic",
       "running": "voters96"
     }

   Prompt exatoInstruções do sistemaFerramentas oferecidasResposta bruta
5. 4Ferramenta
   infer.density_testv0.1.0call_cd33cc9bdecidido pelo modeloreexecutável

   Motivo: I will run McCrary's density test at the 40,500 cutoff to check for potential sorting or manipulation of the running variable.

   Argumentos

   {
     "bandwidth": null,
     "bin_size": null,
     "cutoff": 40500,
     "dataset": "munic",
     "running": "voters96"
   }

   Figuras call_cd33cc9b

   Chave	Valor	Valor bruto	Erro-padrão	IC
   theta Log difference of the density of voters96 just above and just below the cutoff	-2,81005 log points	-2.8100508294499527	0,05355690.05355685921556892	—
   se Standard error of theta	0,0535569 log points	0.05355685921556892	—	—
   z z statistic of theta	-52,4686	-52.46855156571754	—	—
   p_value p-value of no density jump at the cutoff	0 probability	0	—	—

   Diagnósticos

   • method = "mccrary"
   • manipulation = true
   • bin_size = 2.924,282924.2797476678056
   • bandwidth = 7.572.5907572591.729393983
   • n_obs = 5.2815281
   • f_left = 0,0000007369347.369338181453549e-7
   • f_right = 0,00000004436484.436483981740651e-8
   • n_distinct = 4.5954595

   Digests dos dados

   munic 4849fb53b02d5e1e529b6e802d6e90e871843cf5f89da8ad229cd022bbd01f2e

   sha256 do resultado

   8f0261a9e78c7cb80b84317e13d9d31c62d43f1decd515108cf7550432c63856

   Resultado mostrado ao modelo
6. 5Turno do modelo
   call_2b9b63cbgemini-3.8-flashFim: STOP19.596 ms16062 de entrada · 356 de saída · 1838 de raciocínio · 12584 em cache

   Resumo do raciocínio, como declarado pelo modelo

   **My Thought Process for Summarizing and Responding** Okay, so I've just completed an analysis, and now I need to consolidate my findings and present them according to a very specific set of rules. This requires me to think through each instruction carefully and ensure my output is precise and adheres to all constraints. First, I've noted a significant observation from the density test: there's a substantial jump, which could indicate a skew in the municipal distribution. I recall Fujiwara's (2015) work, where the voter count was established *before* the cutoff rule was implemented, meaning sorting was unlikely. However, the McCrary test flagged this as true, so I absolutely must include this diagnostic in my caveats. This is a critical nuance. Next, I need to ensure I'm using the correct tools and following the reporting guidelines. I've loaded or checked the `reporting-numbers` skill and specifically Rule 7. This rule is quite detailed: I need to finish with `submit_answer`, write in the language of the question (with a specific note about Portuguese decimal commas), and be short and direct. The core components of the answer should be: the estimate with its uncertainty, the design that identifies it, and what could undermine it. I also need to list all figures quoted in `figure_refs` in a specific format (`<call_id>:<key>`) and place any limiting diagnostics in caveats. Importantly, I must use the numbers exactly as the tools stated them, avoiding any rule-of-thumb thresholds. A key question arises immediately: "What language was the question asked in?" I review the original prompt, which is in English. This brings me back to Rule 7's instruction: "Write the answer in the language of the question (Portuguese: decimal comma)". This is a bit of a puzzle. Does "language of the question" mean English, since the question is in English? Or is the parenthetical "(Portuguese: decimal comma)" implying a default or a specific handling for Portuguese speakers? Re-reading, the phrase "in the language of the question" seems to clearly indicate the language of the original query. The parenthetical is likely a specific instruction *for* Portuguese: if the question *were* in Portuguese, use a decimal comma. Since my question is in English, the natural interpretation is to respond in English. The parenthetical note about Portuguese is a specific formatting instruction for that language, not a directive to switch to Portuguese if the question is in English. I'll proceed with writing my answer in English. Now, I need to extract the actual numerical results from the `infer__rdd` tool call. I have: * `value`: 0.121282 * `se` (standard error): 0.0159728 * `ci` (confidence interval): [0.0899754, 0.152588] * `n_left`: 151 * `n_right`: 78 * `bandwidth`: 10000 I also performed a sensitivity analysis on the bandwidth: * Bandwidth 5000: estimate 0.123594, se 0.0252428, ci [0.0741193, 0.173069] * Bandwidth 20000: estimate 0.128021, se 0.0112153, ci [0.10604, 0.150003] Crucially, I need to cross-reference these numbers with the source material. The prompt mentions Fujiwara (2015), Table II, Panel A, column (2). The published paper reports a coefficient of 0.121 with a Standard Error of 0.016. My calculated results (0.121282 with SE 0.0159728) match this perfectly, which increases my confidence in the findings. For the density test, `infer__density_test` provided: * `theta`: -2.81005 * `p_value`: 0. This confirms the rejection of density continuity at the cutoff, reinforcing the need to mention this in the caveats, alongside Fujiwara's explanation about the timing of the voter registration data. The bandwidth sensitivity analysis also shows the estimate is stable, which is a good sign and should be mentioned. Finally, I need to compile the `figure_refs`. I will definitely be quoting the main effect, so I'll include `call_3e122e11:effect`. If I were to mention the theta or p-value from the density test in the main answer text, I'd need to add `call_cd33cc9b:theta` and `call_cd33cc9b:p_value` to `figure_refs`. However, the prompt emphasizes brevity and directness, and placing the density test result in caveats is more appropriate. I'll stick to quoting the primary effect for `figure_refs`. Now, I'll structure the final answer according to Rule 7: estimate with uncertainty, design, and potential weaknesses, all while ensuring it's concise and uses the exact numbers from the tools. I will use a decimal point for the decimal separator, as this is standard in English. Therefore, my thinking process leads me to construct the following summary:

   Chamadas pedidas

   • submit_answer (meta-ferramenta)

     {
       "answer": "The sharp regression discontinuity estimate of the jump in valid votes as a share of turnout in the 1998 state legislature elections (r_util98) at the threshold of 40,500 registered voters in 1996 is 0.121282 (standard error of 0.0159728; 95% confidence interval [0.0899754, 0.152588]).\n\nThis local linear specification uses a rectangular/uniform kernel with a bandwidth of 10,000 registered voters around the cutoff (151 municipalities below and 78 municipalities at or above the threshold). It reproduces column (2) of Table II, Panel A in Fujiwara (2015), indicating that electronic voting increased the share of valid votes by approximately 12.1 percentage points.",
       "caveats": [
         "McCrary density test indicates a discontinuity in the running variable density at the cutoff (theta = -2.81005, p-value = 0), although Fujiwara (2015) notes that 1996 voter registration figures were established before the 1998 law was introduced, preventing strategic sorting around the threshold.",
         "Estimates are robust across bandwidths: 0.123594 at half bandwidth (5,000) and 0.128021 at double bandwidth (20,000)."
       ],
       "figure_refs": [
         "call_3e122e11:effect"
       ]
     }

   Prompt exatoInstruções do sistemaFerramentas oferecidasResposta bruta
7. 6Guarda
   resposta recusada

   Números encontrados

   1998 · 40,500 · 1996 · 0.121282 · 0.0159728 · 95% · 0.0899754 · 0.152588 · 10,000 · 151 · 78 · 2 · 2015 · 12.1 · -2.81005 · 0 · 2015 · 1996 · 1998 · 0.123594 · 5,000 · 0.128021 · 20,000

   Sem lastro

   12.1

   Não citados

   —

   0 nova(s) tentativa(s) restante(s)
8. 7Turno do modelo
   call_e03e196fgemini-3.8-flashFim: STOP13.446 ms18349 de entrada · 337 de saída · 1183 de raciocínio · 16167 em cache

   Resumo do raciocínio, como declarado pelo modelo

   **My Thought Process on Number Verification and Compliance** I encountered an error indicating that numerical values not originating from tool calls or the user's question were present. Specifically, I had used "12.1 percentage points," which was an unverified derivation and not a direct output from a tool. My immediate priority became rectifying this by either removing the offending number or replacing it with the precise value provided by a tool call, such as 0.121282. To ensure complete compliance, I then meticulously reviewed *every single number* in my generated response and its associated caveats against their sources: * **Numbers in the main answer text:** * "1998" and "40,500" were confirmed to be directly from the user's question. * "1996" was also clearly present in the question. * "0.121282" was identified as the `effect` value from `call_3e122e11`, a tool output. * "0.0159728" was the standard error (`se`) from `call_3e122e11`. * "0.0899754" and "0.152588" were the lower and upper bounds of the confidence interval (`ci_low` and `ci_high`) from `call_3e122e11`. * Regarding "95%", I noted that this likely stemmed from the `ci_level` of 0.95 from the tool. I considered whether to rephrase this as "0.95 confidence interval" or simply state the interval itself, but ultimately decided that presenting the tool's direct output, or a very close representation of it, was the safest route. * "10,000" was confirmed to be in the question concerning the bandwidth. * "151" and "78" were identified as `n_left` and `n_right` diagnostic outputs from a tool. * "2" was confirmed to be from the question referencing column (2). * "II" was correctly identified as a Roman numeral, not a digit that would be subject to this rule. * **Numbers in the caveats:** * The `theta` value of -2.81005 and the `p-value` of 0 were confirmed as tool outputs from `call_cd33cc9b`. * "1996" and "1998" were again verified as coming from the question. * "0.123594" and "0.128021" were traced to the "table sensitivity" output of `call_3e122e11`. * "5000" and "20000" were also associated with the table sensitivity parameters from `call_3e122e11`. A particular point of reflection was the `figure_refs` field. I questioned whether quoting `theta` in the caveats, even if not directly in the main answer text, would necessitate including `call_cd33cc9b:theta` in `figure_refs`. However, I concluded that `figure_refs` is meant to track figures quoted *in the answer text itself*. Since only `call_3e122e11:effect` was quoted in the primary answer, `figure_refs` was correctly populated. In summary, my rigorous cross-referencing of every numerical value against the source question and tool outputs confirmed that all numbers in the final response were derived strictly from these approved sources, thereby resolving the initial error and ensuring strict adherence to the rule.

   Chamadas pedidas

   • submit_answer (meta-ferramenta)

     {
       "answer": "The sharp regression discontinuity estimate of the jump in valid votes as a share of turnout in the 1998 state legislature elections (r_util98) at the threshold of 40,500 registered voters in 1996 is 0.121282, with a standard error of 0.0159728 and a confidence interval of [0.0899754, 0.152588] at confidence level 0.95.\n\nThis local linear specification uses a uniform/rectangular kernel with a bandwidth of 10,000 registered voters around the cutoff (151 municipalities below and 78 municipalities at or above the cutoff), reproducing column (2) of Table II, Panel A from Fujiwara (2015).",
       "caveats": [
         "McCrary density test rejects continuity at the cutoff (p-value 0, theta -2.81005), though Fujiwara (2015) notes that the 1996 voter registration cutoff was determined prior to the 1998 rule announcement, ruling out strategic sorting by municipalities.",
         "The local linear estimate is stable across bandwidths: 0.123594 at half bandwidth (5000) and 0.128021 at double bandwidth (20000)."
       ],
       "figure_refs": [
         "call_3e122e11:effect"
       ]
     }

   Prompt exatoInstruções do sistemaFerramentas oferecidasResposta bruta
9. 8Guarda
   resposta aceita

   Números encontrados

   1998 · 40,500 · 1996 · 0.121282 · 0.0159728 · 0.0899754 · 0.152588 · 0.95 · 10,000 · 151 · 78 · 2 · 2015 · 0 · -2.81005 · 2015 · 1996 · 1998 · 0.123594 · 5000 · 0.128021 · 20000

   Sem lastro

   0.95

   Não citados

   —

   0 nova(s) tentativa(s) restante(s)
10. 9Resposta

    The sharp regression discontinuity estimate of the jump in valid votes as a share of turnout in the 1998 state legislature elections (r_util98) at the threshold of 40,500 registered voters in 1996 is 0.121282, with a standard error of 0.0159728 and a confidence interval of [0.0899754, 0.152588] at confidence level 0.95. This local linear specification uses a uniform/rectangular kernel with a bandwidth of 10,000 registered voters around the cutoff (151 municipalities below and 78 municipalities at or above the cutoff), reproducing column (2) of Table II, Panel A from Fujiwara (2015). Ressalvas: McCrary density test rejects continuity at the cutoff (p-value 0, theta -2.81005), though Fujiwara (2015) notes that the 1996 voter registration cutoff was determined prior to the 1998 rule announcement, ruling out strategic sorting by municipalities. The local linear estimate is stable across bandwidths: 0.123594 at half bandwidth (5000) and 0.128021 at double bandwidth (20000).

    • McCrary density test rejects continuity at the cutoff (p-value 0, theta -2.81005), though Fujiwara (2015) notes that the 1996 voter registration cutoff was determined prior to the 1998 rule announcement, ruling out strategic sorting by municipalities.
    • The local linear estimate is stable across bandwidths: 0.123594 at half bandwidth (5000) and 0.128021 at double bandwidth (20000).

    Figuras citadas: call_3e122e11:effect · Parada: answered

    Figura da resposta: call_3e122e11:effect = 0,1212820.12128157455040935 (se 0,01597280.015972820289750132)
11. 10Pontuação
    #0resposta com lastrofalhouobrigatóriaunbacked: ['0.95']
12. 11Pontuação
    #1figura da resposta escolhidapassouobrigatóriaanswer figure call_3e122e11:effect (infer.rdd)
13. 12Pontuação
    #2ferramenta chamadapassouobrigatóriaanswer call is infer.rdd
14. 13Pontuação
    #3argumento igualpassouobrigatóriainfer.rdd.y = 'r_util98'
15. 14Pontuação
    #4argumento igualpassouobrigatóriainfer.rdd.running = 'voters96'
16. 15Pontuação
    #5argumento igualpassouobrigatóriainfer.rdd.cutoff = 40500.0
17. 16Pontuação
    #6argumento igualpassouobrigatóriainfer.rdd.bandwidth = 10000.0
18. 17Pontuação
    #7argumento igualpassouobrigatóriainfer.rdd.kernel = 'uniform'
19. 18Pontuação
    #8argumento igualpassouobrigatóriainfer.rdd.polynomial = 1
20. 19Pontuação
    #9diagnósticopassouobrigatória151 vs 151
21. 20Pontuação
    #10diagnósticopassouobrigatória78 vs 78
22. 21Pontuação
    #11figura da resposta próximapassouobrigatória0.1212815746 vs 0.12128157455034086
23. 22Pontuação
    #12figura da resposta próximapassouobrigatória0.01597282029 vs 0.01597282028974219
24. 23Pontuação
    #13figura da resposta próximapassouregistrada0.1212815746 vs 0.121
25. 24Pontuação
    #14figura da resposta próximapassouregistrada0.01597282029 vs 0.016

Épocas × verificações

Tentativas

Cada tentativa é seu próprio arquivo e é publicada; só a última de cada época é pontuada.

• época 1, tentativa 1falhoupontuada(exibindo)

Downloads desta tarefa