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

Functoriality in Resolution of Singularities

2008· article· en· W2018490596 on OpenAlexafffund
Edward Bierstone, Pierre D. Milman

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.012
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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

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

Citations73
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublications of the Research Institute for Mathematical SciencesSame topicAlgebraic Geometry and Number TheoryFrench-language works237,207