MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023986409 · doi:10.1002/jgt.22478

Almost all 5‐regular graphs have a 3‐flow

2019· article· en· W3023986409 on OpenAlexafffund
Paweł Prałat, Nick Wormald

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Graph Theory · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicLimits and Structures in Graph Theory
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCentre of Excellence for Electromaterials Science, Australian Research Council
KeywordsMathematicsCombinatoricsConjectureDiscrete mathematics1-planar graphGraphChordal graph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Tutte conjectured in 1972 that every 4‐edge–connected graph has a nowhere‐zero 3‐flow. This has long been known to be equivalent to the conjecture that every 5‐regular 4‐edge–connected graph has an edge orientation in which every in‐degree is either 1 or 4. We show that the assertion of the conjecture holds asymptotically almost surely for random 5‐regular graphs. It follows that the conjecture holds for almost all 4‐edge–connected 5‐regular graphs.

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)0.007
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Graph TheorySame topicLimits and Structures in Graph TheoryFrench-language works237,207