MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3099993265

Alexander Invariants for Virtual Knots

2016· article· en· W3099993265 on OpenAlexaff
Hans Bodén, Emily Dies, Anne Isabel Gaudreau, Adam Gerlings, Eric Harper

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGeometric and Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexander polynomialMathematicsBracket polynomialHOMFLY polynomialKnot polynomialJones polynomialNormalization (sociology)CombinatoricsPolynomialKnot (papermaking)Algebra over a fieldPure mathematicsKnot invariantDiscrete mathematicsAlternating polynomialKnot theoryMatrix polynomialSquare-free polynomialMathematical analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Given a virtual knot K, we construct a group VGK called the virtual knot group, and we use the elementary ideals of VGK to define invariants of K called the virtual Alexander invariants. For instance, associated to the k = 0 ideal is a polynomial HK(s, t, q) in three variables which we call the virtual Alexander polynomial, and we show that it is closely related to the generalized Alexander polynomial GK(s, t) introduced in [37, 22, 38]. We define a natural normalization of the virtual Alexander polynomial and show it satisfies a skein formula. We also introduce the twisted virtual Alexander polynomial associated to a virtual knot K and a representation % : VGK → GLn(R), and we define a normalization of the twisted virtual Alexander polynomial. As applications we derive bounds on the virtual crossing numbers of virtual knots from the virtual Alexander polynomial and twisted virtual Alexander polynomial.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations27
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeometric and Algebraic TopologyFrench-language works237,207