MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4372319597 · doi:10.1142/s0218216523500414

Tri-plane diagrams for simple surfaces in S4

2023· article· en· W4372319597 on OpenAlexaff
Wolfgang Allred, Manuel Gutiérrez Aragón, Zack Dooley, Yucong Lei, Isaiah Martinez, Nicholas Meyer, Devon Peters, Scott Warrander, Ana Wright, Alexander Zupan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Knot Theory and Its Ramifications · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGeometric and Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsProjective planeCombinatoricsCrossing number (knot theory)Simple (philosophy)Surface (topology)Plane (geometry)DiagramEuler characteristicZero (linguistics)Euler's formulaTable (database)GeometryMathematical analysisKnot (papermaking)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Meier and Zupan proved that an orientable surface [Formula: see text] in [Formula: see text] admits a tri-plane diagram with zero crossings if and only if [Formula: see text] is unknotted, so that the crossing number of [Formula: see text] is zero. We determine the minimal crossing numbers of nonorientable unknotted surfaces in [Formula: see text], proving that [Formula: see text], where [Formula: see text] denotes the connected sum of [Formula: see text] unknotted projective planes with normal Euler number [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] unknotted projective planes with normal Euler number [Formula: see text]. In addition, we convert Yoshikawa’s table of knotted surface ch-diagrams to tri-plane diagrams, finding the minimal bridge number for each surface in the table and providing upper bounds for the crossing numbers.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.285 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Knot Theory and Its RamificationsSame topicGeometric and Algebraic TopologyFrench-language works237,207