MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962715240 · doi:10.1142/s0129167x18500180

Bisectors determining unique pairs of points in the bidisk

2018· article· en· W2962715240 on OpenAlexafffund
Virginie Charette, Todd A. Drumm, Youngju Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mathematics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGeometric and Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNational Research Foundation of KoreaGraduate CenterNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKonkuk UniversityDivision of Mathematical SciencesNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsEquidistantMetric (unit)Rank (graph theory)AssertionUniquenessEuclidean geometryCombinatoricsMetric spaceEuclidean spacePure mathematicsGeometryMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bisectors are equidistant hypersurfaces between two points and are basic objects in a metric geometry. They play an important part in understanding the action of subgroups of isometries on a metric space. In many metric geometries (spherical, Euclidean, hyperbolic, complex hyperbolic, to name a few) bisectors do not uniquely determine a pair of points, in the following sense: completely different sets of points share a common bisector. The above examples of this non-uniqueness are all rank [Formula: see text] symmetric spaces. However, generically, bisectors in the usual [Formula: see text] metric are such for a unique pair of points in the rank [Formula: see text] geometry [Formula: see text]. This result indicates the striking assertion that non-uniqueness of bisectors holds for “most” geometries.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.005

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of MathematicsSame topicGeometric and Algebraic TopologyFrench-language works237,207