MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1614173561 · doi:10.1287/moor.2014.0706

Euclidean Networks with a Backbone and a Limit Theorem for Minimum Spanning Caterpillars

2015· article· en· W1614173561 on OpenAlexaff
Petar Jevtić, J. Michael Steele

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics of Operations Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Management and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsEuclidean minimum spanning treeSpanning treeMinimum spanning treeCombinatoricsEuclidean geometryMinimum weightDiscrete mathematicsShortest path problemSubadditivityEuclidean shortest pathLimit (mathematics)Shortest-path treeMinimum degree spanning treeGraphLongest path problemGeometryMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A caterpillar network (or graph) G is a tree with the property that removal of the leaf edges of G leaves one with a path. Here we focus on minimum weight spanning caterpillars where the vertices are points in the Euclidean plane and the costs of the path edges and the leaf edges are multiples of their corresponding Euclidean lengths. The flexibility in choosing the weight for path edges versus the weight for leaf edges gives some useful flexibility in modeling. In particular, one can accommodate problems motivated by communications theory such as the “last mile problem.” Geometric and probabilistic inequalities are developed that lead to a limit theorem that is analogous to the well-known Beardwood, Halton, and Hammersley theorem for the length of the shortest tour through a random sample, but the minimal spanning caterpillars fall outside the scope of the theory of subadditive Euclidean functionals.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.008
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 venueMathematics of Operations ResearchSame topicData Management and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207