MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225853730 · doi:10.22215/etd/2021-14924

Applications of Optimal Mass Transportation in Geometric and Functional Inequalities

2021· dissertation· en· W4225853730 on OpenAlexaff
Joel Valentino

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGeometric Analysis and Curvature Flows
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematical proofMass transportationInequalitySobolev spaceMathematicsWork (physics)Sobolev inequalityApplied mathematicsPure mathematicsCalculus (dental)Mathematical optimizationMathematical analysisGeometryEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this thesis, our aim is to first layout the framework of optimal transport, and then demonstrate its usefulness in proving functional inequalities.Optimal transport dates back to 1781, when French engineer Gaspard Monge formulated the problem by asking how to transport a given mass into a target distribution with equal mass in the most cost efficient way.We had to wait nearly two centuries until Russian mathematician and economist Leonid Kantorovich reformulated this problem in such a way to allow a dual problem, offering many different perspectives and interpretations of the problem.Roughly 40 years later, in 1987, French mathematician Yann Brenier identified a relation in convexity and optimal transport to prove existence of optimal transport maps to such problems, and furthermore, showed how to find these maps.Brenier's breakthrough gifts several applications of optimal transport to the field of mathematics, some of which are seemingly unrelated at first glance.

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)0.003
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeometric Analysis and Curvature FlowsFrench-language works237,207