MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088134129 · doi:10.2178/jsl/1268917489

Strongly and co-strongly minimal abelian structures

2010· article· en· W2088134129 on OpenAlexaff
Ehud Hrushovski, James Loveys

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Symbolic Logic · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicRings, Modules, and Algebras
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlgebraic structureAbelian groupMathematicsLinear subspaceSubspace topologyCombinatoricsVector spaceDivision ringPure mathematicsElementary abelian groupDiscrete mathematicsDivision (mathematics)Mathematical analysisArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We give several characterizations of weakly minimal abelian structures. In two special cases, dual in a sense to be made explicit below, we give precise structure theorems: 1. when the only finite 0-definable subgroup is {0}, or equivalently 0 is the only algebraic element (the co-strongly minimal case); 2. when the theory of the structure is strongly minimal. In the first case, we identify the abelian structure as a “near-subspace” A of a vector space V over a division ring D with its induced structure, with possibly some collection of distinguished subgroups of A of finite index in A and (up to acl(∅)) no further structure. In the second, the structure is that of V/A for a vector space and near-subspace as above, with the only further possible structure some collection of distinguished points. Here a near-subspace of V is a subgroup A such that for any nonzero d ∈ D. the index of A ∩ dA, in A is finite. We also show that any weakly minimal abelian structure is a reduct of a weakly minimal module.

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Symbolic LogicSame topicRings, Modules, and AlgebrasFrench-language works237,207