Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Group field theory is an emerging field at the boundary between Quantum Gravity, Statistical Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory and provides a path integral for the gluing of n-simplices. Colored group field theory has been introduced in order to improve the renormalizability of the theory and associates colors to the faces of the simplices. The theory of crystallizations is instead a field at the boundary between graph theory and combinatorial topology and deals with n-simplices as colored graphs. Several techniques have been introduced in order to study the topology of the pseudo-manifold associated to the colored graph. Although of the similarity between colored group field theory and the theory of crystallizations, the connection between the two fields has never been made explicit. FINDINGS: In this short note we use results from the theory of crystallizations to prove that color in group field theories guarantees orientability of the piecewise linear pseudo-manifolds associated to each graph generated perturbatively. CONCLUSIONS: Colored group field theories generate orientable pseudo-manifolds. The origin of orientability is the presence of two interaction vertices in the action of colored group field theories. In order to obtain the result, we made the connection between the theory of crystallizations and colored group field theory.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".