Mini-Workshop: Topology of closed one-forms and Cohomology Jumping Loci
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Mini-Workshop was organized by M. Farber (Durham), A. Suciu (Boston) and S. Yuzvinsky (Eugene). It brought together researchers working on two distinct, yet related topics: Even though these two fields share some common roots, so far they have developed in parallel, with not much overlap or interaction. Nevertheless, it is becoming increasingly apparent that there are deep connections between the two theories, with potentially fruitful applications going both ways: Given the multifaceted nature of these topics, the meeting brought together people with a variety of backgrounds, including topology, algebra, discrete geometry, geometric analysis, and singularity theory. Several participants were recent Ph.D.'s, most of them on their first visit to Oberwolfach. In all, there were 16 people attending the workshop (including the organizers), coming from the United States, Great Britain, France, Romania, Canada, and Germany. The Mini-Workshop provided a lively forum for discussing a host of questions related to the themes listed above. The day-by-day schedule was kept flexible, and was agreed upon on short notice, making it possible to shape the program on-site, and in response to the interests expressed by the participants. The borderline between problem sessions and formal lectures were often blurred. Spending a concentrated and highly intense week in a relatively small group allowed for in-depth and continuing conversations, in particular with new acquaintances. These opportunities were enhanced by the diversity of backgrounds of the participants. A basic objective of the Mini-Workshop was to bring together some of the people most actively working in two related fields, and to seek common ground for further advances and collaborations. In the ideally suited research atmosphere at Oberwolfach, participants had the opportunity to explain their respective approaches, and the variety of techniques they use. The lively atmosphere and the free-flow of ideas led to a deeper understanding of the subject, to progress in solving several open problems, and to fruitful insights on how to attack new 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.008 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".