MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2562272069

Approximation Algorithms for the Bottleneck Stretch Factor Problem

2002· article· en· W2562272069 on OpenAlexaff
Giri Narasimhan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEuclidean geometryComputer scienceGraphEuclidean distanceAlgorithmBottleneckData structureComputational geometryCombinatoricsApproximation algorithmTime complexityMathematicsGeometryArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The stretch factor of a Euclidean graph is the maximum ratio of the distance in the graph between any two points and their Euclidean distance. Given a set S of n points in Rd, we show how to construct a data structure of size O(log n), such that for an arbitrary query value b> 0, we can in O(log log n) time compute an approximation of the stretch factor of the graph Gb, which is the threshold graph on S containing all edges of length at most b. Even though there could be up to � � n 2 different stretch factors, we show that this data structure can be constructed in subquadratic time. If we think of the points of S as being airports, then the stretch factor of Gb gives a measure of the maximum percentage increase in flight distance using flight segments of length at most b over the direct distance. Our algorithm uses techniques from computational geometry, such as well-separated pairs, minimum spanning trees, data structures for the nearest-neighbor problem, and algorithms for selecting and ranking distances. 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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.011
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.161 · 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity→French-language works237,207→