MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1488868961 · doi:10.4171/cmh/404

Word length statistics for Teichmüller geodesics and singularity of harmonic measure

2017· preprint· en· W1488868961 on OpenAlexaff
Vaibhav Gadre, Joseph Maher, Giulio Tiozzo

Bibliographic record

VenueCommentarii Mathematici Helvetici · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Dynamics and Fractals
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeodesicMathematicsMeasure (data warehouse)Lebesgue measureBoundary (topology)Harmonic measureσ-finite measureHarmonicPure mathematicsMathematical analysisHarmonic functionLebesgue integrationHausdorff measureHausdorff dimension

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given a measure on the Thurston boundary of Teichmüller space, one can pick a geodesic ray joining some basepoint to a randomly chosen point on the boundary. Different choices of measures may yield typical geodesics with different geometric properties. In particular, we consider two families of measures: the ones which belong to the Lebesgue or visual measure class, and harmonic measures for random walks on the mapping class group generated by a distribution with finite first moment in the word metric. We consider the word length of approximating mapping class group elements along a geodesic ray, and prove that this quantity grows superlinearly in time along almost all geodesics with respect to Lebesgue measure, while along almost all geodesics with respect to harmonic measure the growth is linear. As a corollary, the harmonic and Lebesgue measures are mutually singular. We also prove a similar result for the ratio between the word metric and the relative metric (i.e. the induced metric on the curve complex).

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)0.014
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommentarii Mathematici HelveticiSame topicMathematical Dynamics and FractalsFrench-language works237,207