MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950305828 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1509.08174

Non-central sections of convex bodies

2015· preprint· en· W2950305828 on OpenAlexaff
Vladyslav Yaskin, Ning Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2015
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicPoint processes and geometric inequalities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperplaneCombinatoricsConvex bodyRegular polygonBall (mathematics)MathematicsEuclidean geometryGeometryConvex hull

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the following open problem, suggested by Barker and Larman. Let $K$ and $L$ be convex bodies in $\mathbb R^n$ ($n\ge 2$) that contain a Euclidean ball $B$ in their interiors. If $\mathrm{vol}_{n-1}(K\cap H) = \mathrm{vol}_{n-1}(L\cap H)$ for every hyperplane $H$ that supports $B$, does it follow that $K=L$? We discuss various modifications of this problem. In particular, we show that in $\mathbb R^2$ the answer is positive if the above condition is true for two disks, none of which is contained in the other. We also study some higher dimensional analogues.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.041 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicPoint processes and geometric inequalitiesFrench-language works237,207