MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3080615576 · doi:10.5802/aif.3518

Coronizations and big pieces in metric spaces

2022· article· en· W3080615576 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Bortz, John W. Hoffman, Steve Hofmann, Jose Luis Luna-Garcia, Kaj Nyström

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales de l’institut Fourier · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Topology and Set Theory
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersVetenskapsrådetNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsHausdorff dimensionMetric spaceMeasure (data warehouse)GeneralizationHausdorff measureLipschitz continuityDimension (graph theory)Integer (computer science)Euclidean geometryContext (archaeology)Minkowski–Bouligand dimensionMetric (unit)Discrete mathematicsCombinatoricsPure mathematicsMathematical analysisFractalFractal dimensionGeometryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We prove that coronizations with respect to arbitrary <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mi>d</mml:mi> </mml:math> -regular sets (not necessarily graphs) imply big pieces squared of these (approximating) sets. This is known (and due to David and Semmes in the case of sufficiently large co-dimension, and to Azzam and Schul in general) in the (classical) setting of Euclidean spaces with Hausdorff measure of integer dimension, where the approximating sets are Lipschitz graphs. Our result is a far reaching generalization of these results and we prove that coronizations imply big pieces squared is a generic property. In particular, our result applies, when suitably interpreted, in metric spaces having a fixed positive (perhaps non-integer) dimension, equipped with a Borel regular measure and with arbitrary approximating sets. As a novel application we highlight how to utilize this general setting in the context of parabolic uniform rectifiability.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales de l’institut FourierSame topicAdvanced Topology and Set TheoryFrench-language works237,207