MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W36932259 · doi:10.1007/s00247-023-05643-4

Minimal Defining Sets of 1-Factorizations of Complete Graphs

2008· article· en· W36932259 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nicholas J. Cavenagh, Diane Donovan, Abdollah Khodkar

Bibliographic record

VenueUtilitas Mathematica · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topicgraph theory and CDMA systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsFactorizationEquivalence (formal languages)CombinatoricsSet (abstract data type)GraphUnipotentDiscrete mathematicsComputer scienceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A defining set of a 1-factorization of a graph G is a set of partial 1-factors of G which may be completed to a unique 1-factorization of G. In this paper we construct minimal defining sets of size (n - 4)(n +2)/4 in the 1-factorizations GK(n) (as defined in [1]) of K-n for each even n >= 4. Our construction exploits the well-known equivalence between 1-factorizations and unipotent, symmetric Latin squares.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.193 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUtilitas MathematicaSame topicgraph theory and CDMA systemsFrench-language works237,207