MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183864785 · doi:10.70930/tac/6r8l5k81

Range Categories I: General Theory

2012· article· en· W2183864785 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
J.R.B. Cockett, Xiuzhan Guo, Pieter Hofstra

Bibliographic record

VenueTheory and applications of categories · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRange (aeronautics)GeneralizationMathematicsEnriched categoryEpimorphismSemigroupDomain theoryDomain (mathematical analysis)Category theoryAlgebra over a fieldPure mathematicsDiscrete mathematicsFunctorMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this two-part paper, we undertake a systematic study of abstract partial map categories in which every map has both a restriction (domain of definition) and a range (image).In this first part, we explore connections with related structures such as inverse categories and allegories, and establish two representational results.The first of these explains how every range category can be fully and faithfully embedded into a category of partial maps equipped with a suitable factorization system.The second is a generalization of a result from semigroup theory by Boris Schein, and says that every small range category satisfying the additional condition that every map is an epimorphism onto its range can be faithfully embedded into the category of sets and partial functions with the usual notion of range.Finally, we give an explicit construction of the free range category on a partial map category in terms of certain types of labeled trees.Cockett and Hofstra both acknowledge support through the NSERC Discovery Grant program.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations21
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheory and applications of categoriesSame topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207