MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7056935643

The Hrushovski property, finite height, and maximal ascents

2023· dissertation· en· W7056935643 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsClass (philosophy)Field (mathematics)Measure (data warehouse)Set (abstract data type)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Chapter 1, we show that any compact nonpositively curved cube complex Y embeds in a compact nonpositively curved cube complex R where each partial local isometry of Y extends to an automorphism of R. We prove a similar result for compact special cube complexes provided that the partial local isometries satisfy certain conditions.In Chapter 2, we define the directed height of a mapping of graphs and relate it to the "algebraic" height of subgroups.We show that a map has finite directed height if and only if the corresponding mapping torus has negative immersions.We survey related properties and discuss how they relate to one another.In Chapter 3, we show that given a bi-order ≻ on the free group F, every non-periodic cyclically reduced word W ∈ F admits a maximal ascent that is uniquely positioned.This provides a cyclic permutation of W ′ that decomposes as W ′ = AD where A is an ascent and D is a descent.We show that if D is not uniquely positioned in W , then it must be an internal subword in A. Moreover, we show that when ≻ is the Magnus ordering, D = 1 F if and only if W is monotonic.

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)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→