MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029855664 · doi:10.4153/cjm-2007-043-3

Ideas from Zariski Topology in the Study of Cubical Homology

2007· article· en· W2029855664 on OpenAlexafffund
Tomasz Kaczyński, Marian Mrożek, Anik Trahan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Mathematics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopological and Geometric Data Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Mathematical Society
KeywordsMathematicsHomology (biology)Topology (electrical circuits)CorrectnessNoetherianAxiomDiscrete mathematicsPure mathematicsCombinatoricsAlgebra over a fieldAlgorithmGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cubical sets and their homology have been used in dynamical systems as well as in digital imaging. We take a fresh look at this topic, following Zariski ideas from algebraic geometry. The cubical topology is defined to be a topology in ℝ d in which a set is closed if and only if it is cubical. This concept is a convenient frame for describing a variety of important features of cubical sets. Separation axioms which, in general, are not satisfied here, characterize exactly those pairs of points which we want to distinguish. The noetherian property guarantees the correctness of the algorithms. Moreover, maps between cubical sets which are continuous and closed with respect to the cubical topology are precisely those for whom the homology map can be defined and computed without grid subdivisions. A combinatorial version of the Vietoris–Begle theorem is derived. This theorem plays the central role in an algorithm computing homology of maps which are continuous with respect to the Euclidean topology.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MathematicsSame topicTopological and Geometric Data AnalysisFrench-language works237,207