MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163665693 · doi:10.1112/s0024610703004678

FIELDS OF DEFINITION FOR DIVISION ALGEBRAS

2003· article· en· W2163665693 on OpenAlexafffund
Martin Lorenz, Zinovy Reichstein, Louis Rowen, David J. Saltman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the London Mathematical Society · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicFinite Group Theory Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaIsrael Academy of Sciences and HumanitiesNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsDegree (music)Center (category theory)Field (mathematics)Crossed productTensor productDivision algebraProduct (mathematics)Central simple algebraTRACE (psycholinguistics)Connection (principal bundle)Pure mathematicsDivision (mathematics)Algebra over a fieldArithmeticSubalgebraGeometryPhysicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let A be a finite-dimensional division algebra containing a base field k in its center F. A is defined over a subfield F0 if there exists an F0-algebra A0 such that A = A 0 ⊗ F 0 F . The following are shown. (i) In many cases A can be defined over a rational extension of k. (ii) If A has odd degree n ⩾ 5, then A is defined over a field F0 of transcendence degree ⩽ 1/2(n−1)(n−2) over k. (iii) If A is a Z/m × Z/2-crossed product for some m ⩾ 2 (and in particular, if A is any algebra of degree 4) then A is Brauer equivalent to a tensor product of two symbol algebras. Consequently, Mm(A) can be defined over a field F0 such that trdegk(F0) ⩽ 4. (iv) If A has degree 4 then the trace form of A can be defined over a field F0 of transcendence degree ⩽ 4. (In (i), (iii) and (iv) it is assumed that the center of A contains certain roots of unity.)

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.012
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.006

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations25
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the London Mathematical SocietySame topicFinite Group Theory ResearchFrench-language works237,207