MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127037671 · doi:10.4171/aihpd/37

Comparing two statistical ensembles of quadrangulations: a continued fraction approach

2017· article· en· W2127037671 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

VenueAnnales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré D Combinatorics Physics and their Interactions · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Combinatorial Mathematics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsFraction (chemistry)Generating functionBoundary (topology)ConstructiveProperty (philosophy)Maxima

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We use a continued fraction approach to compare two statistical ensembles of quadrangulations with a boundary, both controlled by two parameters. In the first ensemble, the quadrangulations are bicolored and the parameters control their numbers of vertices of both colors. In the second ensemble, the parameters control instead the number of vertices which are local maxima for the distance to a given vertex, and the number of those which are not. Both ensembles may be described either by their (bivariate) generating functions at fixed boundary length or, after some standard slice decomposition, by their (bivariate) slice generating functions . We first show that the fixed boundary length generating functions are in fact equal for the two ensembles. We then show that the slice generating functions, although different for the two ensembles, simply correspond to two different ways of encoding the same quantity as a continued fraction. This property is used to obtain explicit expressions for the slice generating functions in a constructive way.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.277 · 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