MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043906604 · doi:10.5539/jmr.v3n2p27

On Fuzzy Ordered Abel-Grassmann's Groupoids

2011· article· en· W2043906604 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematics Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicFuzzy and Soft Set Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsFuzzy logicPure mathematicsFuzzy setGeneralizationAlgebra over a fieldDiscrete mathematicsMathematical analysisComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we have introduced the concept of fuzzy ordered AG-groupoids which is the generalization of fuzzy ordered semigroups first considered by Kehayopulu and Tsingelis (2002). We have studied some important features of a left regular ordered AG-groupoid interms of fuzzy left ideals, fuzzy right ideals, fuzzy two-sided ideals, fuzzy generalized bi-ideals, fuzzy bi-ideals, fuzzy interior ideals and fuzzy (1,2)-ideals. We have shown that the set of all fuzzy two-sided ideals of a left regular ordered AG-groupoid forms asemilattice structure. We have characterized all the fuzzy ideals of a left regular ordered AG-groupoid. Finally we have characterized a left regular ordered AG-groupoid by their fuzzy left and fuzzy right ideals.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.543
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.039 · 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