MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056712596 · doi:10.1103/physreve.73.036201

Spacing distributions for point processes on a regular fractal

2006· article· en· W2056712596 on OpenAlexafffund
Jamal Sakhr, J. M. Nieminen

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review E · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Dynamics and Fractals
Canadian institutionsNorthern Digital (Canada)
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsFractalSierpinski triangleStatisticsFractal dimensionMultifractal systemPoint processCrossoverRealization (probability)Interpolation (computer graphics)Poisson point processStatistical physicsGeometryMathematical analysisPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The homogeneous Poisson point process in Rd (denoted by Pd) is a basic model of stochastic geometry and modern statistical physics. Using ideas from fractal geometry, geometrical statistics, and random matrix theory, we introduce the model of random points on a self-similar fractal as a model of intermediate statistics, in the sense that the interpoint spacing statistics of the model are intermediate between those of P1 and P2 when the fractal dimension is in between 1 and 2, and intermediate between those of P2 and P3 when the fractal dimension is in between 2 and 3, and so on. We also introduce the idea of using a continuous family of such models to interpolate between P1 and P2 and thereby effectuate crossover transitions between P1 statistics and P2 statistics. We first derive the kth-nearest-neighbor spacing distribution for the general model, and then study the interpoint spacing statistics of several realizations of the model involving Sierpinski fractals in R2 and R3. We also study a realization of a continuous interpolation between P1 and P2, in particular a continuous interpolation between a point process on a line and a point process on a plane-filling curve, using the continuous family of self-similar Koch curves in R2. In the latter study, we specifically analyze the second-nearest-neighbor interpoint spacing statistics, which undergo a crossover transition between semi-Poisson and Ginibre statistics.

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)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ESame topicMathematical Dynamics and FractalsFrench-language works237,207