MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080845342 · doi:10.1017/s0004972709000616

COMBINATORIAL REES–SUSHKEVICH VARIETIES THAT ARE CROSS, FINITELY GENERATED, OR SMALL

2009· article· en· W2080845342 on OpenAlexaff
Edmond W. H. Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubvarietyMathematicsVariety (cybernetics)CombinatoricsFinitely-generated abelian groupSet (abstract data type)Generating set of a groupLattice (music)Discrete mathematicsPure mathematicsComputer scienceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A variety is said to be a Rees – Sushkevich variety if it is contained in a periodic variety generated by 0-simple semigroups. Recently, all combinatorial Rees–Sushkevich varieties have been shown to be finitely based. The present paper continues the investigation of these varieties by describing those that are Cross, finitely generated, or small. It is shown that within the lattice of combinatorial Rees–Sushkevich varieties, the set ℱ of finitely generated varieties constitutes an incomplete sublattice and the set 𝒮 of small varieties constitutes a strict incomplete sublattice of ℱ. Consequently, a combinatorial Rees–Sushkevich variety is small if and only if it is Cross. An algorithm is also presented that decides if an arbitrarily given finite set Σ of identities defines, within the largest combinatorial Rees–Sushkevich variety, a subvariety that is finitely generated or small. This algorithm has complexity 𝒪( nk ) where n is the number of identities in Σ and k is the length of the longest word in Σ.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.240
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the Australian Mathematical SocietySame topicsemigroups and automata theoryFrench-language works237,207