MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058031318 · doi:10.1016/j.comgeo.2015.01.004

Reprint of: Weighted straight skeletons in the plane

2015· article· en· W2058031318 on OpenAlex
Thérèse Biedl, Martin Held, Stefan Huber, Dominik Kaaser, Peter Palfrader

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputational Geometry · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkeleton (computer programming)Polygon (computer graphics)Regular polygonCombinatoricsMathematicsConvex polygonPoint (geometry)AmbiguityComputer scienceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate weighted straight skeletons from a geometric, graph-theoretical, and combinatorial point of view. We start with a thorough definition and shed light on some ambiguity issues in the procedural definition. We investigate the geometry, combinatorics, and topology of faces and the roof model, and we discuss in which cases a weighted straight skeleton is connected. Finally, we show that the weighted straight skeleton of even a simple polygon may be non-planar and may contain cycles, and we discuss under which restrictions on the weights and/or the input polygon the weighted straight skeleton still behaves similar to its unweighted counterpart. In particular, we obtain a non-procedural description and a linear-time construction algorithm for the straight skeleton of strictly convex polygons with arbitrary weights.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.239 · 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