MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103244827 · doi:10.70930/tac/vps3rhtd

More on Geometric Morphisms between Realizability Toposes

2014· article· en· W2103244827 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eric Faber, Jaap van Oosten

Bibliographic record

VenueTheory and applications of categories · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputability, Logic, AI Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRealizabilityMorphismTopos theoryMathematicsPure mathematicsAlgebra over a fieldDiscrete mathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geometric morphisms between realizability toposes are studied in terms of morphisms between partial combinatory algebras (pcas).The morphisms inducing geometric morphisms (the computationally dense ones) are seen to be the ones whose 'lifts' to a kind of completion have right adjoints.We characterize topos inclusions corresponding to a general form of relative computability.We characterize pcas whose realizability topos admits a geometric morphism to the effective topos.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.012
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheory and applications of categoriesSame topicComputability, Logic, AI AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207