MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138079680 · doi:10.4153/cjm-2007-034-4

The Choquet–Deny Equation in a Banach Space

2007· article· en· W2138079680 on OpenAlexaff
Wojciech Jaworski, Matthias Neufang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Mathematics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Operator Algebra Research
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsBounded functionBanach spacePure mathematicsChoquet theorySpace (punctuation)Norm (philosophy)Metrization theoremHarmonic functionHeat equationMathematical analysisSeparable spaceRegular polygonSubderivative

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Let G be a locally compact group and π a representation of G by weakly* continuous isometries acting in a dual Banach space E. Given a probability measure μ on G, we study the Choquet–Deny equation π(μ)x = x, x ∈ E. We prove that the solutions of this equation form the range of a projection of norm 1 and can be represented by means of a “Poisson formula” on the same boundary space that is used to represent the bounded harmonic functions of the random walk of law μ. The relation between the space of solutions of the Choquet–Deny equation in E and the space of bounded harmonic functions can be understood in terms of a construction resembling theW*-crossed product and coinciding precisely with the crossed product in the special case of the Choquet–Deny equation in the space E = B(L2(G)) of bounded linear operators on L2(G). Other general properties of the Choquet–Deny equation in a Banach space are also discussed.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations15
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MathematicsSame topicAdvanced Operator Algebra ResearchFrench-language works237,207