MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2752748329 · doi:10.1002/jgt.22185

The mean order of sub‐<i>k</i>‐trees of <i>k</i>‐trees

2017· article· en· W2752748329 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexander M. Stephens, Ortrud R. Oellermann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Graph Theory · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGraph theory and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCombinatoricsMathematicsTree (set theory)Order (exchange)Weight-balanced treeVertex (graph theory)CliqueDiscrete mathematicsGraphBinary treeBinary search tree

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article focuses on the problem of determining the mean orders of sub‐k‐trees of k‐trees. It is shown that the problem of finding the mean order of all sub‐k‐trees containing a given k‐clique C, can be reduced to the previously studied problem of finding the mean order of subtrees of a tree that contain a given vertex. This problem is extended in two ways. The first of these extensions focuses on the mean order of sub‐k‐trees containing a given sub‐k‐tree. The second extension focuses on the expected number of r‐cliques, , in a randomly chosen sub‐k‐tree containing a fixed sub‐k‐tree X. Sharp lower bounds for both invariants are derived. The article concludes with a study of global mean orders of sub‐k‐trees of a k‐tree. For a k‐tree, from the class of simple‐clique k‐trees, it is shown that the mean order of its sub‐k‐trees is asymptotically equal to the mean subtree order of its dual. For general k‐trees a recursive generating function for the number of sub‐k‐trees of a given k‐tree T is derived.

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)0.006
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Graph TheorySame topicGraph theory and applicationsFrench-language works237,207