Bibliographic record
Abstract
An element [Formula: see text] of a ring [Formula: see text] is nil-clean, if [Formula: see text], where [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] is a nilpotent element, and the ring [Formula: see text] is called nil-clean if each of its elements is nil-clean. In [W. Wm. McGovern, S. Raja and A. Sharp, Commutative nil clean group rings, J. Algebra Appl. 14(6) (2015) 5; Article ID: 1550094], it was proved that, for a commutative ring [Formula: see text] and an abelian group [Formula: see text], the group ring [Formula: see text] is nil-clean, iff [Formula: see text] is nil-clean and [Formula: see text] is a [Formula: see text]-group. Here, we discuss the nil-cleanness of group rings in general situation. We prove that the group ring of a locally finite [Formula: see text]-group over a nil-clean ring is nil-clean, and that the hypercenter of the group [Formula: see text] must be a [Formula: see text]-group if a group ring of [Formula: see text] is nil-clean. Consequently, the group ring of a nilpotent group over an arbitrary ring is nil-clean, iff the ring is a nil-clean ring and the group is a [Formula: see text]-group.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".