MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992893569 · doi:10.1080/00207160.2012.681305

Composition and orbits of language operations: finiteness and upper bounds

2012· article· en· W1992893569 on OpenAlexaff
Émilie Charlier, Tero Harju, Jeffrey Shallit

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computer Mathematics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClosure (psychology)MathematicsComplement (music)SuffixPrefixEquivalence (formal languages)Regular languageNatural numberBounded functionDiscrete mathematicsSet (abstract data type)MonoidEquivalence relationCombinatoricsComputer scienceLinguisticsAutomaton

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a set of eight natural operations on formal languages (Kleene closure, positive closure, complement, prefix, suffix, factor, subword, and reversal), and compositions of them. If x and y are compositions, we say x is equivalent to y if they have the same effect on all languages L. We prove that the number of equivalence classes of these eight operations is finite. This implies that the orbit of any language L under the elements of the monoid is finite and bounded, independent of L. This generalizes previous results about complement, Kleene closure, and positive closure. We also estimate the number of distinct languages generated by various subsets of these operations.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.011
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Computer MathematicsSame topicsemigroups and automata theoryFrench-language works237,207