MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245876577 · doi:10.1002/jgt.20300

An improved bound for the strong chromatic number

2008· article· en· W4245876577 on OpenAlexaff
Penny Haxell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Graph Theory · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGraph Labeling and Dimension Problems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsCombinatoricsChromatic scaleVertex (graph theory)GraphFractional coloringExistential quantificationFriendship graphDegree (music)List coloringDiscrete mathematicsClass (philosophy)Upper and lower boundsGraph powerLine graphComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Let η > 0 be given. Then there exists d0 = d0(η) such that the following holds. Let G be a finite graph with maximum degree at most d ≥ d0 whose vertex set is partitioned into classes of size α d, where α≥ 11/4 + η. Then there exists a proper coloring of G with αd colors in which each class receives all αd colors. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Graph Theory 58:148–158, 2008

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.003

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Graph TheorySame topicGraph Labeling and Dimension ProblemsFrench-language works237,207