Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spaces of orderings provide an abstract framework in which to study spaces of orderings of formally real fields. Spaces of orderings of finite chain length are well understood [9, 11]. The Isotropy Theorem [11] and the extension of the Isotropy Theorem given in [13] are the main tools for reducing questions to the finite case, and these are quite effective. At the same time, there are many questions which do not appear to reduce in this way. In this paper we consider four such questions, for a space of orderings ( X, G ). 1. Is it true that every positive primitive formula P ( a ) with parameters a in G which holds in every finite subspace of ( X, G ) necessarily holds in ( X, G )? 2. If f : X → ℤ is continuous and Σ x ∈ V f ( x ) ≡ 0 mod ∣V∣ holds for all fans V in X with ∣V∣ ≤ 2 n , does there exist a form ϕ with entries in G such that mod Cont( X , 2 n ℤ)? 3. Is it true that Cont( X , 2 n ℤ) ∩ Witt( X, G ) = I n ( X, G ), where I( X, G ) denotes the fundamental ideal? 4. Is the separating depth of a constructible set C in X necessarily bounded by the stability index of ( X, G )? The unexplained terminology and notation is explained later in the main body of the paper. In a certain sense Question 1 is the main question. At the same time, Questions 2, 3 and 4 are of considerable interest, both from the point of view of quadratic form theory and from the point of view of real algebraic geometry.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".