MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135217630 · doi:10.20382/jocg.v11i2a7

Topological data analysis in information space

2020· article· en· W3135217630 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Herbert Edelsbrunner, Žiga Virk, Hubert Wagner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Geometry (Carleton University) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopological and Geometric Data Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchAustrian Science FundDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsSimplexHistogramContext (archaeology)Euclidean spaceMathematicsEuclidean geometryPoint (geometry)Topological data analysisDimension (graph theory)Topology (electrical circuits)Euclidean distanceProbability distributionComputer scienceTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmCombinatoricsArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)GeographyStatisticsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various kinds of data are routinely represented as discrete probability distributions. Examples include text documents summarized by histograms of word occurrences and images represented as histograms of oriented gradients. Viewing a discrete probability distribution as a point in the standard simplex of the appropriate dimension, we can understand collections of such objects in geometric and topological terms. Importantly, instead of using the standard Euclidean distance, we look into dissimilarity measures with information-theoretic justification, and we develop the theory needed for applying topological data analysis in this setting. In doing so, we emphasize constructions that enable the usage of existing computational topology software in this context.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational Geometry (Carleton University)Same topicTopological and Geometric Data AnalysisFrench-language works237,207