MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1785343861 · doi:10.5802/aif.2307

Logarithmic Surfaces and Hyperbolicity

2007· article· en· W1785343861 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gerd Dethloff, Steven Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales de l’institut Fourier · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematics and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaLeibniz-GemeinschaftDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsLogarithmMathematicsMathematical analysisPhysicsGeometryMathematical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1981 J. Noguchi proved that in a logarithmic algebraic manifold, having logarithmic irregularity strictly bigger than its dimension, any entire curve is algebraically degenerate. In the present paper we are interested in the case of manifolds having logarithmic irregularity equal to its dimension. We restrict our attention to Brody curves, for which we resolve the problem completely in dimension 2: in a logarithmic surface with logarithmic irregularity 2 and logarithmic Kodaira dimension 2 , any Brody curve is algebraically degenerate . In the case of logarithmic Kodaira dimension 1, we still get the same result under a very mild condition on the Stein factorization map of the quasi-Albanese map of the log surface, but we show by giving a counter-example that the result is not true any more in general. Finally we prove that a logarithmic surface having logarithmic irregularity 2 admits certain types of algebraically non degenerate entire curves if and only if its logarithmic Kodaira dimension is zero, and we also give a characterization of this case in terms of the quasi-Albanese map.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales de l’institut FourierSame topicMathematics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207