MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016643675 · doi:10.1353/ajm.0.0016

Knot Floer homology detects genus-one fibred knots

2008· article· en· W2016643675 on OpenAlexaff
Paolo Ghiggini

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Mathematics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGeometric and Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibered knotFloer homologyMathematicsKnot (papermaking)CorollaryKnot invariantHomology (biology)Pure mathematicsTricolorabilityKnot complementConjectureKhovanov homologyKnot theoryCombinatoricsSymplectic geometryBiologyAmino acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ozsv\'ath and Szab\'o conjectured that knot Floer homology detects fibred knots. We propose a strategy to approach this conjecture based on contact topology and Gabai's theory of sutured manifold decomposition. We implement this strategy for genus-one knots, obtaining as a corollary that if rational surgery on a knot $K$ gives the Poincar\'e homology sphere $\Sigma(2,3,5)$, then $K$ is the left-handed trefoil knot.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations170
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of MathematicsSame topicGeometric and Algebraic TopologyFrench-language works237,207