MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7015656285

Towards Characterizing Strict Outerconfluent Graphs

2017· other· en· W7015656285 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueGraph Drawing E-print Archive (Die Universität zu Köln) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCiência sem FronteirasNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoAustrian Science FundGrantová Agentura České RepublikyNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSet (abstract data type)Class (philosophy)Sequence (biology)Identification (biology)Interval (graph theory)Intersection (aeronautics)Term (time)Matching (statistics)Feature (linguistics)Representation (politics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CDEG, "Computerized Diagrammatic Euclidean Geometry," is a computerized formal system for giving diagrammatic proofs in Euclidean geometry which uses planar graphs in drawing its diagrams.Here we discuss some of the graphtheoretic problems that arise in this context.This computer proof system implements a diagrammatic formal system for giving diagram-based proofs of theorems of Euclidean geometry that are similar to the informal proofs found in Euclid's Elements.The theoretical ideas underlying this system and the original version of CDEG are described in detail in the book Euclid and his Twentieth Century Rivals: Diagrams in the Logic of Euclidean Geometry [4].A much updated version of CDEG is now publicly available at [1].Interested readers are encouraged to download CDEG and to try it out for themselves.When we say that CDEG is a diagrammatic computer proof system, this means that it allows its user to give geometric proofs using diagrams.Internally, CDEG represents a diagram abstractly as a planar graph along with some additional information about how elements of the graph relate to the geometric objects they represent.The nodes in the graph represent points in the plane, while the edges represent line segments and arcs of circles.In general, one diagram drawn by CDEG can actually represent many different possible collections of lines and circles in the plane.What these collections all share, and share with the diagram that represents them, is that they all have the same planar topology.This means that any one can be stretched into any other.So, for example, a diagram containing a single line segment represents all possible single line segments in the plane, since any such line segment can be stretched into any other.Two sample CDEG diagrams are shown in Fig. 1.The first diagram represents a circle drawn with a point inside of it and two points on its circumference.The circle is drawn in a way that appears to be rectangular rather than circular, but recall that all we care about here is the topology of the diagram.The second diagram, which occurs in the proof of Euclid's Proposition 1, shows an equilateral triangle inscribed in the intersection of two circles.In CDEG diagrams, dotted lines represent circles while solid lines represent straight lines, and all nodes, edges, and regions of the underlying graph are labeled for reference by numbers drawn in boxes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueGraph Drawing E-print Archive (Die Universität zu Köln)French-language works237,207