MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2273444316 · doi:10.5802/aif.3149

Bounded negativity, Harbourne constants and transversal arrangements of curves

2017· article· lv· W2273444316 on OpenAlexaff
Piotr Pokora, Xavier Roulleau, Tomasz Szemberg

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales de l’institut Fourier · 2017
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic Geometry and Number Theory
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNarodowym Centrum Nauki
KeywordsBounded functionTransversal (combinatorics)Negativity effectConstant (computer programming)MathematicsMathematical analysisPure mathematicsPsychologySocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Bounded Negativity Conjecture predicts that for every complex projective surface X there exists a number b ( X ) such that C 2 ≥ - b ( X ) holds for all reduced curves C ⊂ X . For birational surfaces f : Y → X there have been introduced certain invariants (Harbourne constants) relating to the effect the numbers b ( X ) , b ( Y ) and the complexity of the map f . These invariants have been studied when f is the blowup of all singular points of an arrangement of lines in ℙ 2 , of conics and of cubics. In the present note we extend these considerations to blowups of ℙ 2 at singular points of arrangements of curves of arbitrary degree d . The main result in this direction is stated in Theorem B. We also considerably generalize and modify the approach witnessed so far and study transversal arrangements of sufficiently positive curves on arbitrary surfaces with the non-negative Kodaira dimension. The main result obtained in this general setting is presented in Theorem A.

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)0.007
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.313
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales de l’institut FourierSame topicAlgebraic Geometry and Number TheoryFrench-language works237,207