MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2475833652 · doi:10.4171/164-1/10

Some geometries to describe nature

2016· book-chapter· en· W2475833652 on OpenAlexaff
Christiane Rousseau

Bibliographic record

VenueEMS Press eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMorphological variations and asymmetry
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFractalRange (aeronautics)Development (topology)Computer scienceGeometryMathematicsEngineeringMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since ancient times, the development of mathematics has been inspired, at least in part, by the need to provide models in other sciences, and that of describing and understanding the world around us. In this note, we concentrate on the shapes of nature and introduce two related geometries that play an important role in contemporary science. Fractal geometry allows describing a wide range of shapes in nature. In 1973, Harry Blum introduced a new geometry well suited to describe animal morphology.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.294
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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEMS Press eBooksSame topicMorphological variations and asymmetryFrench-language works237,207