MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1800615184 · doi:10.70930/tac/2djmx28n

Notions of flatness relative to a Grothendieck topology

2004· article· en· W1800615184 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Panagis Karazeris

Bibliographic record

VenueTheory and applications of categories · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicHomotopy and Cohomology in Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlatness (cosmology)FunctorMathematicsPure mathematicsLimit (mathematics)Property (philosophy)Covering spaceTopology (electrical circuits)CombinatoricsMathematical analysisPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Completions of (small) categories under certain kinds of colimits and exactness conditions have been studied extensively in the literature.When the category that we complete is not left exact but has some weaker kind of limit for finite diagrams, the universal property of the completion is usually stated with respect to functors that enjoy a property reminiscent of flatness.In this fashion notions like that of a left covering or a multilimit merging functor have appeared in the literature.We show here that such notions coincide with flatness when the latter is interpreted relative to (the internal logic of) a site structure associated to the target category.We exploit this in order to show that the left Kan extensions of such functors, along the inclusion of their domain into its completion, are left exact.This gives in a very economical and uniform manner the universal property of such completions.Our result relies heavily on some unpublished work of A. Kock from 1989.We further apply this to give a pretopos completion process for small categories having a weak finite limit property.

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)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheory and applications of categoriesSame topicHomotopy and Cohomology in Algebraic TopologyFrench-language works237,207