MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133112574 · doi:10.5802/afst.1480

Knot complements, hidden symmetries and reflection orbifolds

2016· article· en· W2133112574 on OpenAlexafffund
Michel Boileau, Steven Boyer, Radu Cebanu, Genevieve Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales de la faculté des sciences de Toulouse Mathématiques · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGeometric and Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMathematisches Forschungsinstitut OberwolfachNational Science Foundation
KeywordsHomogeneous spaceReflection (computer programming)Knot (papermaking)MathematicsPure mathematicsPsychologyComputer scienceGeometryMaterials scienceComposite materialProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article we examine the conjecture of Neumann and Reid that the only hyperbolic knots in the <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mn>3</mml:mn> </mml:math> -sphere which admit hidden symmetries are the figure-eight knot and the two dodecahedral knots. Knots whose complements cover hyperbolic reflection orbifolds admit hidden symmetries, and we verify the Neumann-Reid conjecture for knots which cover small hyperbolic reflection orbifolds. We also show that a reflection orbifold covered by the complement of an AP knot is necessarily small. Thus when <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mi>K</mml:mi> </mml:math> is an AP knot, the complement of <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mi>K</mml:mi> </mml:math> covers a reflection orbifold exactly when <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mi>K</mml:mi> </mml:math> is either the figure-eight knot or one of the dodecahedral knots.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales de la faculté des sciences de Toulouse MathématiquesSame topicGeometric and Algebraic TopologyFrench-language works237,207