MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315542554 · doi:10.4153/cjm-2013-041-6

Perfect Orderings on Finite Rank Bratteli Diagrams

2013· article· en· W2315542554 on OpenAlexafffund
Sergey Bezuglyi, Jan Kwiatkowski, Reem Yassawi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Mathematics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Dynamics and Fractals
Canadian institutionsTrent University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMathematicsRank (graph theory)DiagramCombinatoricsSet (abstract data type)Mathematical proofClass (philosophy)Simple (philosophy)Discrete mathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Given a Bratteli diagram B, we study the set 𝒪B of all possible orderings on B and its subset PB consisting of perfect orderings that produce Bratteli–Vershik topological dynamical systems (Vershik maps). We give necessary and sufficient conditions for the ordering ω to be perfect. On the other hand, a wide class of non-simple Bratteli diagrams that do not admit Vershik maps is explicitly described. In the case of finite rank Bratteli diagrams, we show that the existence of perfect orderings with a prescribed number of extreme paths constrains significantly the values of the entries of the incidence matrices and the structure of the diagram B. Our proofs are based on the new notions of skeletons and associated graphs, defined and studied in the paper. For a Bratteli diagram B of rank k, we endow the set 𝒪B with product measure μ and prove that there is some 1 ≤ j ≤ k such that μ-almost all orderings on B have j maximal and j minimal paths. If j is strictly greater than the number of minimal components that B has, then μ-almost all orderings are imperfect.

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)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations18
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MathematicsSame topicMathematical Dynamics and FractalsFrench-language works237,207