MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122681344

Concordance of knots in S1×S2

2018· article· en· W3122681344 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher William Davis, Matthias Nagel, JungHwan Park, Arunima Ray

Bibliographic record

VenueMPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGeometric and Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnot (papermaking)ConcordanceMathematicsKnot theoryPairwise comparisonCombinatoricsWinding numberTopology (electrical circuits)Class (philosophy)Linking numberComputer scienceMathematical analysisStatisticsBiologyArtificial intelligenceBioinformatics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We establish a number of results about smooth and topological concordance of knots in S 1 × S 2 . The winding number of a knot in S 1 × S 2 is defined to be its class in H 1 ( S 1 × S 2 ; Z ) ≅ Z . We show that there is a unique smooth concordance class of knots with winding number one. This improves the corresponding result of Friedl–Nagel–Orson–Powell in the topological category. We say a knot in S 1 × S 2 is slice (respectively, topologically slice) if it bounds a smooth (respectively, locally flat) disk in D 2 × S 2 . We show that there are infinitely many topological concordance classes of non-slice knots, and moreover, for any winding number other than ± 1 , there are infinitely many topological concordance classes even within the collection of slice knots. Additionally, we demonstrate the distinction between the smooth and topological categories by constructing infinite families of slice knots that are pairwise topologically but not smoothly concordant, as well as non-slice knots that are topologically slice and are pairwise topologically, but not smoothly, concordant.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.428
Threshold uncertainty score0.945

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society)Same topicGeometric and Algebraic TopologyFrench-language works237,207