MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070400297 · doi:10.1103/physreve.63.021506

Crossings and writhe of flexible and ideal knots

2001· article· en· W2070400297 on OpenAlexaff
Juin-Yan Huang, Pik-Yin Lai

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGeometric and Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Central University
KeywordsWritheKnot (papermaking)Crossing number (knot theory)Ideal (ethics)Monte Carlo methodPhysicsLinking numberNonlinear systemMathematicsStatistical physicsGeometryTwistStatisticsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The data of ideal knots [Nature, 384, 142 (1996)] are reanalyzed and the average crossing number of the ideal knots (ideal) shows a nonlinear behavior with the essential crossing number C. Supplemented with our Monte Carlo simulations using the bond fluctuation model on flexible knotted polymers, our analysis indicates that (ideal) varies nonlinearly with both C and the corresponding average crossing number of the flexible knot, which is contrary to previous claims. Our extensive simulation data on the average crossing number of flexible knots suggest that it varies linearly with the square root of C. Furthermore, our data on the average writhe number indicate that various knots are classified into holonomous groups, and has a quantized linear increment with C in all four knot groups in our study.

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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations34
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topicsSame topicGeometric and Algebraic TopologyFrench-language works237,207