MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011103565 · doi:10.4153/cjm-2002-010-5

Convergence Factors and Compactness in Weighted Convolution Algebras

2002· article· en· W2011103565 on OpenAlexafffund
F. Ghahramani, Sandy Grabiner

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Mathematics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Topics in Algebra
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Mathematical Society
KeywordsMathematicsConvergence (economics)Convolution (computer science)Compact spaceNorm (philosophy)Compact convergencePure mathematicsBanach spaceSpace (punctuation)Modes of convergence (annotated index)Topological spaceRate of convergenceTopological vector spaceComputer scienceIsolated point

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We study convergence in weighted convolution algebras L 1 ( ω ) on R + , with the weights chosen such that the corresponding weighted space M ( ω ) of measures is also a Banach algebra and is the dual space of a natural related space of continuous functions. We determine convergence factor ɳ for which weak * -convergence of { λ n } to λ in M ( ω ) implies norm convergence of λ n * f to λ * f in L 1 ( ωɳ ). We find necessary and sufficent conditions which depend on ω and f and also find necessary and sufficent conditions for ɳ to be a convergence factor for all L 1 (ω) and all f in L 1 ( ω ). We also give some applications to the structure of weighted convolution algebras. As a preliminary result we observe that ɳ is a convergence factor for ω and f if and only if convolution by f is a compact operator from M ( ω ) (or L 1 ( ω )) to L 1 ( ωɳ ).

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations7
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MathematicsSame topicAdvanced Topics in AlgebraFrench-language works237,207