MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2274851529 · doi:10.70930/tac/9x087ygv

Localization of enriched categories and cubical sets

2017· article· en· W2274851529 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tyler Lawson

Bibliographic record

VenueTheory and applications of categories · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicHomotopy and Cohomology in Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEnriched categoryMathematicsAxiomEquivalence (formal languages)Closed categoryModel categoryProperty (philosophy)Equivalence of categoriesSymmetric monoidal categoryPure mathematicsConcrete category2-categoryHigher category theoryDiscrete mathematicsFunctorEpistemologyGeometryHomotopy category

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The invertibility hypothesis for a monoidal model category S asks that localizing an S-enriched category with respect to an equivalence results in an weakly equivalent enriched category.This is the most technical among the axioms for S to be an excellent model category in the sense of Lurie, who showed that the category Cat S of S-enriched categories then has a model structure with characterizable fibrant objects.We use a universal property of cubical sets, as a monoidal model category, to show that the invertibility hypothesis is a consequence of the other axioms.Topological categories, simplicial categories, and differential graded categories are special types of enriched categories: the enriching category has a notion of weak equivalence and its own homotopy theory.These have played a prominent role a diverse array of subjects.Getting control over the homotopy theory of some of these enriched categories and homotopical constructions in them (such as pushouts, pullbacks, and other derived limit and colimit constructions) is easier in the presence of model structures.If S is a monoidal model category, Lurie gave conditions for the existence of a model structure with many useful properties on the collection Cat S of S-enriched categories [Lur09, A.3.2.4].(In the terminology of [BM13], this allows Lurie to assert that the canonical model structure exists.)The cofibrations and weak equivalences in Cat S have a relatively straightforward description (see §2), but in order to get a useful characterization of the fibrations more assumptions are required.With this goal, Lurie defined an excellent model category as a model category S, with a symmetric monoidal structure, satisfying additional axioms labeled (A1) through (A5).The first four of these axioms are all relatively standard concepts or are straightforward to verify. Axiom (A5) is called the invertibility hypothesis.It is more technical-it roughly asserts that inverting a weak equivalence results in a weakly equivalent enriched categoryand is more difficult to verify in practice.The fact that the category Set ∆ of simplicial sets satisfies the invertibility hypothesis is an important result of Dwyer and Kan [DK80, 10.4].The invertibility hypothesis for differential graded categories is a consequence of work of Toën [Toë07, 8.7], and for enrichment in simplicial model categories it is a theorem of Dundas [Dun01, 0.9].Our main result is the following.

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)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0010.005
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheory and applications of categoriesSame topicHomotopy and Cohomology in Algebraic TopologyFrench-language works237,207