MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109335724 · doi:10.1142/s1005386715000152

Some ∗-Clean Group Rings

2015· article· en· W2109335724 on OpenAlexaff
Yanyan Gao, Jianlong Chen, Yuanlin Li

Bibliographic record

VenueAlgebra Colloquium · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicRings, Modules, and Algebras
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInvolution (esoterism)MathematicsGroup ringCommutative ringUnit (ring theory)Pure mathematicsCommutative propertyGroup (periodic table)CombinatoricsChemistryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A ring with involution ∗ is called ∗-clean if each of its elements is the sum of a unit and a projection. It is obvious that ∗-clean rings are clean. Vaš asked whether there exists a clean ring with involution that is not ∗-clean. In this paper, we investigate when a group ring RG is ∗-clean, where ∗ is the classical involution on RG. We obtain necessary and sufficient conditions for RG to be ∗-clean, where R is a commutative local ring and G is one of the groups C3, C4, S3 and Q8. As a consequence, we provide many examples of group rings which are clean but not ∗-clean.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.274
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; 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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlgebra ColloquiumSame topicRings, Modules, and AlgebrasFrench-language works237,207