MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2739728626

Seepage in directed acyclic graphs.

2009· article· en· W2739728626 on OpenAlexaff
Nancy E. Clarke, Stephen Finbow, Shannon L. Fitzpatrick, Margaret-Ellen Messinger, Richard J. Nowakowski

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralas. J Comb. · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward IslandDalhousie UniversitySt. Francis Xavier UniversityAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCartesian productDirected acyclic graphCombinatoricsDirected graphVertex (graph theory)Sink (geography)GraphMathematicsCartesian coordinate systemComputer scienceDiscrete mathematicsGeographyGeometryCartography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the firefighting and the graph searching problems, a contaminate spreads relatively quickly. We introduce a new model, on directed acyclic graphs, in which the contamination spreads slowly. The model was inspired by the efforts to stem the lava flow from the Eldfell volcano in ∗ Partially supported by grants from NSERC. 92 N.E. CLARKE ET AL. Iceland. The contamination starts at a source, only one vertex at a time is contaminated and for some fixed k, k vertices are protected. The slowness is indicated by the name ‘seepage’. The object is to protect the sinks of the graph. We show that if a sink of the graph can be contaminated then at most one directed path need be contaminated. We also investigate the Cartesian product of directed paths. We show that for the product of 3 directed paths that is truncated to only vertices up to a distance of d from the source, if d ≥ 9, then only one vertex need be protected on each turn to protect the sinks. We also present bounds for the Cartesian product of more than 3 paths.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.014
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.292
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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralas. J Comb.Same topicArtificial Intelligence in GamesFrench-language works237,207