MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135687836 · doi:10.1017/s0143385707000946

The absorption theorem for affable equivalence relations

2008· article· en· W2135687836 on OpenAlexaff
Thierry Giordano, Hiroki Matui, Ian F. Putnam, Christian Skau

Bibliographic record

VenueErgodic Theory and Dynamical Systems · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Operator Algebra Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsEquivalence relationEquivalence (formal languages)Extension (predicate logic)GeneralizationCantor setPure mathematicsDiscrete mathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We prove a result about extension of a minimal AF-equivalence relation R on the Cantor set X, the extension being ‘small’ in the sense that we modify R on a thin closed subset Y of X. We show that the resulting extended equivalence relation S is orbit equivalent to the original R, and so, in particular, S is affable. Even in the simplest case—when Y is a finite set—this result is highly non-trivial. The result itself—called the absorption theorem—is a powerful and crucial tool for the study of the orbit structure of minimal ℤn-actions on the Cantor set, see Remark 4.8. The absorption theorem is a significant generalization of the main theorem proved in Giordano et al [Affable equivalence relations and orbit structure of Cantor dynamical systems. Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys.24 (2004), 441–475] . However, we shall need a few key results from the above paper in order to prove the absorption theorem.

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)0.004
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations13
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueErgodic Theory and Dynamical SystemsSame topicAdvanced Operator Algebra ResearchFrench-language works237,207