MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950807927 · doi:10.1112/topo.12018

Grope metrics on the knot concordance set

2017· article· en· W2950807927 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Topology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGeometric and Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSimons FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsKnot (papermaking)Infimum and supremumConcordanceConjectureSet (abstract data type)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To a special type of grope embedded in 4-space, that we call a branch-symmetric grope, we associate a length function for each real number q ⩾ 1 . This gives rise to a family of pseudo-metrics d q , refining the slice genus metric, on the set of concordance classes of knots, as the infimum of the length function taken over all possible grope concordances between two knots. We investigate the properties of these metrics. The main theorem is that the topology induced by this metric on the knot concordance set is not discrete for all q > 1 . The analogous statement for links also holds for q = 1 . In addition, we translate much previous work on knot concordance into distance statements. In particular, we show that winding number zero satellite operators are contractions in many cases, and we give lower bounds on our metrics arising from knot signatures and higher order signatures. This gives further evidence in favor of the conjecture that the knot concordance group has a fractal structure.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of TopologySame topicGeometric and Algebraic TopologyFrench-language works237,207