MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2281461875 · doi:10.4153/cmb-2018-016-4

Monoidal Categories, 2-Traces, and Cyclic Cohomology

2018· article· en· W2281461875 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Mohammad Hassanzadeh, Masoud Khalkhali, Ilya Shapiro

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Mathematical Bulletin · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsUnitalCyclic homologyCohomologySymmetric monoidal categoryTRACE (psycholinguistics)BimoduleAssociative propertyMonoidal categoryHomology (biology)CombinatoricsAbelian groupPure mathematicsAlgebra over a fieldLinguisticsFunctor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper we show that to a unital associative algebra object (resp. co-unital co-associative co-algebra object) of any abelian monoidal category ( $\mathscr{C},\otimes$ ) endowed with a symmetric 2-trace,i.e., an $F\in \text{Fun}(\mathscr{C},\text{Vec})$ satisfying some natural trace-like conditions, one can attach a cyclic (resp. cocyclic) module, and therefore speak of the (co)cyclic homology of the (co)algebra “with coefficients in $F$ ”. Furthermore, we observe that if $\mathscr{M}$ is a $\mathscr{C}$ -bimodule category and $(F,M)$ is a stable central pair,i.e., $F\in \text{Fun}(\mathscr{M},\text{Vec})$ and $M\in \mathscr{M}$ satisfy certain conditions, then $\mathscr{C}$ acquires a symmetric 2-trace. The dual notions of symmetric 2-contratraces and stable central contrapairs are derived as well. As an application we can recover all Hopf cyclic type (co)homology theories.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Mathematical BulletinSame topicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial modelsFrench-language works237,207