MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949587595 · doi:10.1090/tran/7820

Extension of isotopies in the plane

2019· article· en· W2949587595 on OpenAlexafffund
Logan C. Hoehn, Lex Oversteegen, E. D. Tymchatyn

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the American Mathematical Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Dynamics and Fractals
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanNipissing University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsIsotopyMathematicsHolomorphic functionPlane (geometry)Bounded functionPure mathematicsCharacterization (materials science)Extension (predicate logic)Mathematical analysisTopology (electrical circuits)GeometryCombinatoricsPhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is known that a holomorphic motion (an analytic version of an isotopy) of a set X X in the complex plane C \mathbb {C} always extends to a holomorphic motion of the entire plane. In the topological category, it was recently shown that an isotopy h : X × [ 0 , 1 ] → C h: X \times [0,1] \to \mathbb {C} , starting at the identity, of a plane continuum X X also always extends to an isotopy of the entire plane. Easy examples show that this result does not generalize to all plane compacta. In this paper we will provide a characterization of isotopies of uniformly perfect plane compacta X X which extend to an isotopy of the entire plane. Using this characterization, we prove that such an extension is always possible provided the diameters of all components of X X are uniformly bounded away from zero.

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)0.002
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the American Mathematical SocietySame topicMathematical Dynamics and FractalsFrench-language works237,207