MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164940821 · doi:10.37193/cmi.2013.01.05

Generalized distances and their associate metrics. Impact on fixed point theory

2013· article· en· W3164940821 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCreative Mathematics and Informatics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicFixed Point Theorems Analysis
Canadian institutionsScience North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetric spaceMathematicsEquivalence of metricsConvex metric spaceInjective metric spaceIntrinsic metricUniform continuityMetric (unit)Pure mathematicsFixed-point theoremFixed pointDiscrete mathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last years there is an abundance of fixed point theorems in literature, most of them established in various generalized metric spaces. Amongst the generalized spaces considered in those papers, we may find: cone metric spaces, quasimetric spaces (or b-metric spaces), partial metric spaces, G-metric spaces etc. In some recent papers [Haghi, R. H., Rezapour, Sh. and Shahzad, N., Some fixed point generalizations are not real generalizations, Nonlinear Anal., 74 (2011), 1799-1803], [Haghi, R. H., Rezapour, Sh. and Shahzad, N., Be careful on partial metric fixed point results, Topology Appl., 160 (2013), 450-454], [Samet, B., Vetro, C. and Vetro, F., Remarks on G-Metric Spaces, Int. J. Anal., Volume 2013, Article ID 917158, 6 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/917158], the authors pointed out that some of the fixed point theorems transposed from metric spaces to cone metric spaces, partial metric spaces or G-metric spaces, respectively, are sometimes not real generalizations. The main aim of the present note is to inspect what happens in this respect with b-metric spaces.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.258 · 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