MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037142942 · doi:10.1216/rmjm/1181070040

Commutative Endomorphism Algebras of Torsion-Free, Rank-Two Kronecker Modules with Singular Height Functions

2002· article· en· W2037142942 on OpenAlexaff
Frank Okoh, Frank Zorzitto

Bibliographic record

VenueRocky Mountain Journal of Mathematics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsEndomorphismKronecker deltaTorsion (gastropod)Pure mathematicsCommutative propertyRank (graph theory)Algebra over a fieldCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As is the case with Abelian groups, rank-1, torsion-free Kronecker modules are characterized by height functions.A height function is called singular provided it never assumes the value infinity.The endomorphism algebras of singular, rank-1, torsion-free Kronecker modules are trivial.Here we consider the endomorphism algebras of torsion-free, rank-2 modules that are extensions of finite-dimensional modules by modules of rank-1.If K is the ground field and K(X) the field of rational functions, the endomorphism algebras of the rank-2, indecomposable modules are known to be commutative K-subalgebras of the matrix ring M 2 (K(X)).When the height function is nonsingular the resulting endomorphism algebras can be varied, including, for example, coordinate rings of elliptic curves.This paper examines the possibilities for the singular case, which we show are more limited.Yet their endomorphism algebras offer examples from an important class of commutative rings, namely, zero-dimension, local rings.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRocky Mountain Journal of MathematicsSame topicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial modelsFrench-language works237,207