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

Some ∗-Clean Group Rings

2015· article· en· W2109335724 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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 C 3 , C 4 , S 3 and Q 8 . 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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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