MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2295001894 · doi:10.5539/jmr.v8n2p37

Standard Ideals in BCL+ Algebras

2016· article· en· W2295001894 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yonghong Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematics Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Algebra and Logic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeal (ethics)MathematicsRadical of an idealMaximal idealQuotientPure mathematicsMinimal idealPrincipal idealDiscrete mathematicsCombinatoricsEpistemologyCommutative propertyPrincipal ideal ring

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We show some useful properties of these ideals that give various methods how to get ideals from them, and so our main aim is to study their properties. Here, we introduce these ideals i.e., the natural ideal, normal ideal, former ideal (and its doublet, latter ideal), proper ideal, normal extension ideal, normal uptake ideal. In particular, we introduce Boolean ideal and normal Boolean ideal to grasp the diversity of ideal for BCL+ algebras. As a means, we can define quotient BCL+ algebras only in terms of ideal, and we discuss its structure.

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 score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.306 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mathematics ResearchSame topicAdvanced Algebra and LogicFrench-language works237,207