MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1945757731 · doi:10.3233/fi-2013-871

Decomposition of Relations and Concept Lattices

2013· article· en· W1945757731 on OpenAlex
Rudolf Berghammer, Michael Winter

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

VenueFundamenta Informaticae · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecompositionComputer scienceTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsAlgebra over a fieldPure mathematicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce the decomposition of an arbitrary relation into a sequential composition of three relations, viz. of a mapping with a partial order and then the transpose of a mapping. After presenting some basic properties, we investigate the specific classes of junkfree, irreducible and minimal decompositions and show that for all relations a minimal decomposition exists. We also study decompositions with regard to DedekindMacNeille completions and concept lattices. These constructions are closely related to decompositions of relations. In our setting the fundamental theorem of concept lattices states that concept lattices are minimal-complete decompositions and all such decompositions are isomorphic. As a further main result we prove that the cutDedekindMacNeille completion of the order that belongs to the minimal decomposition of a relation is isomorphic to the concept lattice of that relation. Instead of considering binary relations on sets, we will work point-free within the general framework of allegories. This complement-free approach implies that the results of the paper can be applied to all models of these algebraic structures, including, for instance, lattice-valued fuzzy relations.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.245 · 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