MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067092314 · doi:10.2478/spma-2014-0004

On the Relationships between Zero Forcing Numbers and Certain Graph Coverings

2014· article· en· W2067092314 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSpecial Matrices · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsCombinatoricsGraphDiscrete mathematicsCubic graphLine graphVoltage graphButterfly graphUpper and lower boundsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The zero forcing number and the positive zero forcing number of a graph are two graph parameters that arise from two types of graph colourings. The zero forcing number is an upper bound on the minimum number of induced paths in the graph that cover all the vertices of the graph, while the positive zero forcing number is an upper bound on the minimum number of induced trees in the graph needed to cover all the vertices in the graph. We show that for a block-cycle graph the zero forcing number equals the path cover number.We also give a purely graph theoretical proof that the positive zero forcing number of any outerplanar graphs equals the tree cover number of the graph. These ideas are then extended to the setting of k-trees, where the relationship between the positive zero forcing number and the tree cover number becomes more complex.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.452
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.241 · 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