MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2478985313 · doi:10.1017/s1474748018000051

A BOUND FOR THE INDEX OF A QUADRATIC FORM AFTER SCALAR EXTENSION TO THE FUNCTION FIELD OF A QUADRIC

2018· preprint· en· W2478985313 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephen Scully

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Institute of Mathematics of Jussieu · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic Geometry and Number Theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsQuadricMathematicsUpper and lower boundsIsotropyAlgebraic numberScalar fieldQuadratic form (statistics)Diagonalizable matrixScalar (mathematics)Quadratic equationPure mathematicsField (mathematics)CombinatoricsMathematical physicsMathematical analysisPhysicsGeometryQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Let $q$ be an anisotropic quadratic form defined over a general field $F$ . In this article, we formulate a new upper bound for the isotropy index of $q$ after scalar extension to the function field of an arbitrary quadric. On the one hand, this bound offers a refinement of an important bound established in earlier work of Karpenko–Merkurjev and Totaro; on the other hand, it is a direct generalization of Karpenko’s theorem on the possible values of the first higher isotropy index. We prove its validity in two key cases: (i) the case where $\text{char}(F)\neq 2$ , and (ii) the case where $\text{char}(F)=2$ and $q$ isquasilinear(i.e., diagonalizable). The two cases are treated separately using completely different approaches, the first being algebraic–geometric, and the second being purely algebraic.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Institute of Mathematics of JussieuSame topicAlgebraic Geometry and Number TheoryFrench-language works237,207