MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018490596 · doi:10.2977/prims/1210167338

Functoriality in Resolution of Singularities

2008· article· en· W2018490596 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePublications of the Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic Geometry and Number Theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsMorphismResolution of singularitiesPure mathematicsFunctorEquivalence (formal languages)Resolution (logic)Ideal (ethics)ExponentGravitational singularityMathematical analysisEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Algorithms for resolution of singularities in characteristic zero are based on Hironaka’s idea of reducing the problem to a simpler question of desingularization of an “idealistic exponent” (or “marked ideal”). How can we determine whether two marked ideals are equisingular in the sense that they can be resolved by the same blowing-up sequences? We show there is a desingularization functor defined on the category of equivalence classes of marked ideals and smooth morphisms, where marked ideals are “equivalent” if they have the same sequences of “test transformations”. Functoriality in this sense realizes Hironaka’s idealistic exponent philosophy. We use it to show that the recent algorithms for desingularization of marked ideals of Włodarczyk and of Kollár coincide with our own, and we discuss open problems.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.369
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.074 · 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