Bibliographic record
Abstract
Let D be a digraph and X ~ V(D). By pushing X we mean reversing the orientation of each arc of D with exactly one end in X. Klostermeyer proved that it is NP-complete to decide if a given digraph can be made acyclic using the push operation. By contrast, Huang, MacGillivray, and Wood showed that the problem of deciding if a given multipartite tournament can be made acyclic using the push operation is solvable in polynomial time. We define a digraph to be nearly-acyclic if it is obtained from an acyclic digraph by substituting a (directed) triangle or a single vertex for each vertex of the acyclic digraph. It is shown that it is NPcomplete to decide if a given digraph can be made nearly-acyclic using the push operation. In this paper, we characterize, in terms of forbidden subtournaments, the tournaments which can be made nearly-acyclic by pushing. This implies that the problem of deciding if a given tournament can be made nearly-acyclic using the push operation is solvable in polynomial time. 1
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".