MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415370434 · doi:10.4171/rlm/1065

The notions of skeleton and crack, and singularities of the oriented distance function

2025· article· W4415370434 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRendiconti Lincei Matematica e Applicazioni · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Diagnostics and Reliability
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGravitational singularityComplement (music)Function (biology)Partition (number theory)Object (grammar)Signed distance functionSet functionSkeleton (computer programming)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In problems where a geometric object is the variable, the object can be identified with the oriented distance function which can simultaneously deal with the smooth sets of classical Differential Geometry and sets with a lousy boundary.This paper reviews some properties of the distance function d_{A} to a set A , the oriented distance function b_{A}=d_{A}-d_{\complement A} ( \complement A , the complement of A ), and the associated notions of skeletons , b -crack , and crack . It gives the respective partitions of the boundaries \partial A and \partial (\partial A) and the partition of the singularities of \nabla b_{A} . It turns out that the notion of b -crack is possibly too broad since it also includes corners in the core boundary \partial\overline{A}\cap\partial\overline{\complement A} of the set A . On one hand, this analysis leads to the notions of crack-free sets and strongly crack-free sets and, on the other hand, to the notion of cracked sets in Image Segmentation and Mathematical Morphology.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.829
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.187 · 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