MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051648971 · doi:10.4153/cmb-2011-132-4

On Constructing Ergodic Hyperfinite Equivalence Relations of Non-Product Type

2011· article· en· W2051648971 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Radu-Bogdan Munteanu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Mathematical Bulletin · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Operator Algebra Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMathematicsEquivalence relationEquivalence (formal languages)Ergodic theoryMatrix equivalenceLogical equivalencePure mathematicsProduct (mathematics)Quotient algebraType (biology)Algebra over a fieldGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Product type equivalence relations are hyperfinitemeasured equivalence relations, which, up to orbit equivalence, are generated by product type odometer actions. We give a concrete example of a hyperfinite equivalence relation of non-product type, which is the tail equivalence on a Bratteli diagram. In order to show that the equivalence relation constructed is not of product type we will use a criterion called property A. This property, introduced by Krieger for non-singular transformations, is defined directly for hyperfinite equivalence relations in this paper.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient 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 score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.007

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.232 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Mathematical BulletinSame topicAdvanced Operator Algebra ResearchFrench-language works237,207