Co-hierarchical analysis of shape structures
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce an unsupervised co-hierarchical analysis of a set of shapes, aimed at discovering their hierarchical part structures and revealing relations between geometrically dissimilar yet functionally equivalent shape parts across the set. The core problem is that of representative co-selection . For each shape in the set, one representative hierarchy (tree) is selected from among many possible interpretations of the hierarchical structure of the shape. Collectively, the selected tree representatives maximize the within-cluster structural similarity among them. We develop an iterative algorithm for representative co-selection. At each step, a novel cluster-and-select scheme is applied to a set of candidate trees for all the shapes. The tree-to-tree distance for clustering caters to structural shape analysis by focusing on spatial arrangement of shape parts, rather than their geometric details. The final set of representative trees are unified to form a structural co-hierarchy. We demonstrate co-hierarchical analysis on families of man-made shapes exhibiting high degrees of geometric and finer-scale structural variabilities.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it