MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948854493 · doi:10.4153/s0008439519000547

Assouad Spectrum Thresholds for Some Random Constructions

2019· article· en· W2948854493 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sascha Troscheit

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Mathematical Bulletin · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Dynamics and Fractals
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsDimension (graph theory)Metric spaceScalingSpectrum (functional analysis)Boundary (topology)Interpolation (computer graphics)Function (biology)Pure mathematicsStatistical physicsMathematical analysisFrame (networking)GeometryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Assouad dimension of a metric space determines its extremal scaling properties. The derived notion of the Assouad spectrum fixes relative scales by a scaling function to obtain interpolation behaviour between the quasi-Assouad and the box-counting dimensions. While the quasi-Assouad and Assouad dimensions often coincide, they generally differ in random constructions. In this paper we consider a generalised Assouad spectrum that interpolates between the quasi-Assouad and the Assouad dimension. For common models of random fractal sets, we obtain a dichotomy of its behaviour by finding a threshold function where the quasi-Assouad behaviour transitions to the Assouad dimension. This threshold can be considered a phase transition, and we compute the threshold for the Gromov boundary of Galton–Watson trees and one-variable random self-similar and self-affine constructions. We describe how the stochastically self-similar model can be derived from the Galton–Watson tree result.

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)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Mathematical BulletinSame topicMathematical Dynamics and FractalsFrench-language works237,207