MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134322783 · doi:10.37236/10328

Resolutions of Convex Geometries

2021· preprint· en· W3134322783 on OpenAlexaff
Domenico Cantone, Jean‐Paul Doignon, Alfio Giarlotta, Stephen Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Electronic Journal of Combinatorics · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Topology and Set Theory
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvex analysisConvex hullConvex setMathematicsAffine transformationSubderivativeConvex polytopeRegular polygonConvex combinationConvex geometryGeometryResolution (logic)Pure mathematicsConvex bodyCombinatoricsProper convex functionConvex optimizationComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Convex geometries (Edelman and Jamison, 1985) are finite combinatorial structures dual to union-closed antimatroids or learning spaces. We define an operation of resolution for convex geometries, which replaces each element of a base convex geometry by a fiber convex geometry. Contrary to what happens for similar constructions–compounds of hypergraphs, as in Chein, Habib and Maurer (1981), and compositions of set systems, as in Möhring and Radermacher)–, resolutions of convex geometries always yield a convex geometry. We investigate resolutions of special convex geometries: ordinal and affine. A resolution of ordinal convex geometries is again ordinal, but a resolution of affine convex geometries may fail to be affine. A notion of primitivity, which generalize the corresponding notion for posets, arises from resolutions: a convex geometry is primitive if it is not a resolution of smaller ones. We obtain a characterization of affine convex geometries that are primitive, and compute the number of primitive convex geometries on at most four elements. Several open problems are listed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.012
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Electronic Journal of CombinatoricsSame topicAdvanced Topology and Set TheoryFrench-language works237,207