MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094948820 · doi:10.1002/rsa.20394

The scaling window for a random graph with a given degree sequence

2012· article· en· W2094948820 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueRandom Structures and Algorithms · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicLimits and Structures in Graph Theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandom graphCombinatoricsGiant componentScalingMathematicsDegree (music)GraphSequence (biology)Random sequenceComponent (thermodynamics)Window (computing)Discrete mathematicsPhysicsGeometryComputer scienceMathematical analysisQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We consider a random graph on a given degree sequence D , satisfying certain conditions. Molloy and Reed defined a parameter Q = Q ( D ) and proved that Q = 0 is the threshold for the random graph to have a giant component. We introduce a new parameter R = R ( \documentclass{article}\usepackage{mathrsfs, amsmath, amssymb}\pagestyle{empty}\begin{document}\begin{align*}\mathcal {D}\end{align*} \end{document} ) and prove that if | Q | = O ( n ‐1/3 R 2/3 ) then, with high probability, the size of the largest component of the random graph will be of order Θ( n 2/3 R ‐1/3 ). If | Q | is asymptotically larger than n ‐1/3 R 2/3 then the size of the largest component is asymptotically smaller or larger than n 2/3 R ‐1/3 . Thus, we establish that the scaling window is | Q | = O ( n ‐1/3 R 2/3 ). © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Random Struct. Alg., 2012

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.276
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.253 · 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