MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1915311877 · doi:10.2140/pjm.2015.277.463

Calculating two-strand jellyfish relations

2015· article· en· W1915311877 on OpenAlexfundno aff
David Penneys, Emily Peters

Bibliographic record

VenuePacific Journal of Mathematics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Operator Algebra Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAustralian National UniversityDefense Advanced Research Projects AgencyNorthwestern UniversityU.S. Department of DefenseNational Science Foundation
KeywordsJellyfishConstruct (python library)MathematicsPlanarSpace (punctuation)Quadratic equationPrincipal (computer security)GraphPlanar graphCombinatoricsComputer scienceBiologyEcologyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We construct a 3 ‫4/ޚ‬ subfactor using an algorithm which, given generators in a spoke graph planar algebra, computes two-strand jellyfish relations.This subfactor was known to Izumi, but has not previously appeared in the literature.We systematically analyze the space of second annular consequences, adapting Jones' treatment of the space of first annular consequences in his quadratic tangles article.This article is the natural followup to two recent articles on spoke subfactor planar algebras and the jellyfish algorithm.Work of Bigelow and Penneys explains the connection between spoke subfactor planar algebras and the jellyfish algorithm, and work of Morrison and Penneys automates the construction of subfactors where both principal graphs are spoke graphs using one-strand jellyfish.This is the published version of

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)0.003
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.263 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePacific Journal of MathematicsSame topicAdvanced Operator Algebra ResearchFrench-language works237,207