MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795112160 · doi:10.1112/blms.12320

Self‐conformal sets with positive Hausdorff measure

2020· article· en· W2795112160 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the London Mathematical Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Dynamics and Fractals
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilUniversity of WaterlooSuomalainen Tiedeakatemia
KeywordsHausdorff measureOuter measureHausdorff dimensionUrysohn and completely Hausdorff spacesHausdorff spaceEffective dimensionHausdorff distanceMeasure (data warehouse)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the Hausdorff measure and content on a class of quasi self-similar sets that include, for example, graph-directed and sub self-similar and self-conformal sets. We show that any Hausdorff measurable subset of such a set has comparable Hausdorff measure and Hausdorff content. In particular, this proves that graph-directed and sub self-conformal sets with positive Hausdorff measure are Ahlfors regular, irrespective of separation conditions. When restricting to self-conformal subsets of the real line with Hausdorff dimension strictly less than one, we additionally show that the weak separation condition is equivalent to Ahlfors regularity and its failure implies full Assouad dimension. In fact, we resolve a self-conformal extension of the dimension drop conjecture for self-conformal sets with positive Hausdorff measure by showing that their Hausdorff dimension fall below the expected value if and only if there are exact overlaps.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the London Mathematical SocietySame topicMathematical Dynamics and FractalsFrench-language works237,207