MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979161272 · doi:10.1142/s1793525323500486

Wide short geodesic loops on closed Riemannian manifolds

2023· article· en· W2979161272 on OpenAlexafffund
Regina Rotman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Topology and Analysis · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGeometric Analysis and Curvature Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeodesicMathematicsDimension (graph theory)CombinatoricsPure mathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is not known whether or not the length of the shortest periodic geodesic on a closed Riemannian manifold [Formula: see text] can be majorized by [Formula: see text], or [Formula: see text], where [Formula: see text] is the dimension of [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text] denotes the volume of [Formula: see text], and [Formula: see text] denotes its diameter. In this paper, we will prove that for each [Formula: see text] one can find such estimates for the length of a geodesic loop with angle between [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] with an explicit constant that depends both on [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text]. That is, let [Formula: see text], and let [Formula: see text]. We will prove that there exists a “wide” (i.e. with an angle that is wider than [Formula: see text]) geodesic loop on [Formula: see text] of length at most [Formula: see text]. We will also show that there exists a “wide” geodesic loop of length at most [Formula: see text]. Here [Formula: see text] is the Filling Radius of [Formula: see text].

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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.284 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Topology and AnalysisSame topicGeometric Analysis and Curvature FlowsFrench-language works237,207