MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2246156274 · doi:10.5802/jtnb.962

On the equivalence of types

2017· preprint· fr· W2246156274 on OpenAlexaff
Enric Nart

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal de Théorie des Nombres de Bordeaux · 2017
Typepreprint
Languagefr
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic Geometry and Number Theory
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonic polynomialEquivalence (formal languages)MathematicsENCODEPrime (order theory)CombinatoricsType (biology)Pure mathematicsDiscrete mathematicsPolynomialMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Types over a discrete valued field ( K , v ) are computational objects that parameterize certain families of monic irreducible polynomials in K v [ x ] , where K v is the completion of K at v . Two types are considered to be equivalent if they encode the same family of prime polynomials in K v [ x ] . In this paper, we find diferent characterizations of the equivalence of types in terms of certain data and operators associated with them.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.012
Scholarly communication0.0090.026
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal de Théorie des Nombres de BordeauxSame topicAlgebraic Geometry and Number TheoryFrench-language works237,207