MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205569330 · doi:10.3390/app112411946

Rigidity through a Projective Lens

2021· article· en· W4205569330 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Anthony Nixon

Bibliographic record

VenueMDPI (MDPI AG) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Analysis and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRigidity (electromagnetism)MatroidProjective testInfinitesimalPure mathematicsProjective spaceMathematicsProjective geometryAlgebra over a fieldMathematical analysisDiscrete mathematicsPhysicsDifferential geometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we offer an overview of a number of results on the static rigidity and infinitesimal rigidity of discrete structures which are embedded in projective geometric reasoning, representations, and transformations. Part I considers the fundamental case of a bar–joint framework in projective d-space and places particular emphasis on the projective invariance of infinitesimal rigidity, coning between dimensions, transfer to the spherical metric, slide joints and pure conditions for singular configurations. Part II extends the results, tools and concepts from Part I to additional types of rigid structures including body-bar, body–hinge and rod-bar frameworks, all drawing on projective representations, transformations and insights. Part III widens the lens to include the closely related cofactor matroids arising from multivariate splines, which also exhibit the projective invariance. These are another fundamental example of abstract rigidity matroids with deep analogies to rigidity. We conclude in Part IV with commentary on some nearby areas.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMDPI (MDPI AG)Same topicStructural Analysis and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207