MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2955232156 · doi:10.46298/dmtcs.6329

Asymptotic laws for knot diagrams

2020· article· en· W2955232156 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Harrison Chapman

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscrete Mathematics & Theoretical Computer Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGeometric and Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of GeorgiaUniversity of SaskatchewanNational Science Foundation
KeywordsKnot (papermaking)MathematicsCombinatoricsConjectureKnot invariantKnot theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study random knotting by considering knot and link diagrams as decorated, (rooted) topological maps on spheres and sampling them with the counting measure on from sets of a fixed number of vertices n. We prove that random rooted knot diagrams are highly composite and hence almost surely knotted (this is the analogue of the Frisch-Wasserman-Delbruck conjecture) and extend this to unrooted knot diagrams by showing that almost all knot diagrams are asymmetric. The model is similar to one of Dunfield, et al.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.263 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscrete Mathematics & Theoretical Computer ScienceSame topicGeometric and Algebraic TopologyFrench-language works237,207