MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1903931195 · doi:10.2140/gt.2023.27.823

A calculus for bordered Floer homology

2023· article· en· W1903931195 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Hanselman, Liam Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueGeometry & Topology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGeometric and Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsFibered knotFloer homologyTorusHomology (biology)Pure mathematicsMapping class groupBoundary (topology)Teichmüller spaceSpace (punctuation)Mathematical analysisGeometrySurface (topology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a class of manifolds with torus boundary admitting bordered Heegaard Floer homology of a particularly simple form; namely, the type D structure may be described graphically by a disjoint union of loops.We develop a calculus for studying bordered invariants of this form and, in particular, provide a complete description of slopes giving rise to L-space Dehn fillings as well as necessary and sufficient conditions for L-spaces resulting from identifying two such manifolds along their boundaries.As an application, we show that Seifert-fibred spaces with torus boundary fall into this class, leading to a proof that, among graph manifolds containing a single JSJ torus, the property of being an L-space is equivalent to non-left-orderability of the fundamental group and to the nonexistence of a coorientable taut foliation.57M27 1. Introduction 823 2. Background and conventions 830 3. Loop calculus 842 4. Characterizing slopes 861 5. Gluing results 881 6. Graph manifolds 896 7. L-spaces and non-left-orderability 919

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)0.002
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
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeometry & TopologySame topicGeometric and Algebraic TopologyFrench-language works237,207