MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W49365848 · doi:10.46298/dmtcs.279

Defect Effect of Bi-infinite Words in the Two-element Case

2001· article· en· W49365848 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

VenueDiscrete Mathematics & Theoretical Computer Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWord (group theory)Element (criminal law)SharpeningSet (abstract data type)AlphabetMathematicsWord problem (mathematics education)Maximal elementClosure (psychology)Discrete mathematicsCombinatoricsPure mathematicsAlgebra over a fieldArithmeticComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceLinguisticsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let X be a two-element set of words over a finite alphabet. If a bi-infinite word possesses two X-factorizations which are not shiftequivalent, then the primitive roots of the words in X are conjugates. Note, that this is a strict sharpening of a defect theorem for bi-infinite words stated in \emphKMP. Moreover, we prove that there is at most one bi-infinite word possessing two different X-factorizations and give a necessary and sufficient conditions on X for the existence of such a word. Finally, we prove that the family of sets X for which such a word exists is parameterizable.

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)0.007
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score0.750

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.263 · 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