MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Continuous Mapping of Covering Approximate Space and Topology Induced by Arbitrary Covering Relation

2023· preprint· en· W4384927392 on OpenAlexaff
Xiao Shang, Pei Wang, Huo Rong Wu, Yu Han E

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Guangxi ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMathematicsTopological spaceRelation (database)Homeomorphism (graph theory)Space (punctuation)CombinatoricsDiscrete mathematicsTopology (electrical circuits)Computer scienceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the study of rough sets, there are many covering approximation spaces, how to classify covering approximation spaces has become a hot issue. In this paper, we propose concepts covering approximation $T_{1}$-space, $F-$symmtry, covering rough continuous mapping, covering rough homeomorphism mapping to solve this question. We also propose a new method for constructing topology in Theorem 5.1, and get the following properties: (1) For each $x\in U$, $\{X_{i}:i\in I\}\subseteq \mathcal{P}(U)$ is all the subsets of $U$ which contains $x$ and $*$ is a reflexive relation on $U$. If $V\in \tau$ is a subset of $U$ and $x\in V$, then $\underline{*}(\bigcap \limits_{i\in I}X_{i})$ is the smallest subset of $U$ and $x \in \underline{*}(\bigcap \limits_{i\in I}X_{i})\subseteq V$. Denoted by $C(x)=\bigcap \{\underline{*}(X_{i}):x\in \underline{*}(X_{i}),i\in I\}$. (2)If $V\in \tau$ is a subset of $U$, then $V =$ $\bigcup \limits_{x\in V} C(x)$. (3) Let $\{\underline{*}(X_{i}):x\notin \underline{*}(X_{i}), i\in I\}$, then $\overline{\{x\}}$ $=$ $U \setminus \bigcup \limits_{x\notin \underline{*}(X_{i}), i\in I}\underline{*}(X_{i})$; (4) Let $*$ be a reflexive relation on $U$. For every $X\subseteq U$, we have $int(\underline{*}(X))=\underline{*}(X)$. Where $int(\underline{*}(X))$ represents the interior of $\underline{*}(X)$. (5) Let $\{\underline{*}(X_{i}):x\in \underline{*}(X_{i}),i\in I\}$ be a family subsets of $U$, then $\{\underline{*}(X_{i}):x\in \underline{*}(X_{i}),i\in I\}$ is a base for $(U,\tau)$ at the point $x$. \\

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)0.005
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 venuePreprints.orgSame topicRough Sets and Fuzzy LogicFrench-language works237,207