Bibliographic record
Abstract
An associative ring with unity is called clean if each of its elements is the sum of an idempotent and a unit. A clean ring with involution ∗ is called ∗-clean if each of its elements is the sum of a unit and a projection (∗-invariant idempotent). In a recent paper, Huang, Li and Yuan provided a complete characterization that when a group ring [Formula: see text] is ∗-clean, where [Formula: see text] is a finite field and [Formula: see text] is a cyclic group of an odd prime power order [Formula: see text]. They also provided a necessary condition and a few sufficient conditions for [Formula: see text] to be ∗-clean, where [Formula: see text] is a cyclic group of order [Formula: see text]. In this paper, we extend the above result of Huang, Li and Yuan from [Formula: see text] to [Formula: see text] and provide a characterization of ∗-clean group rings [Formula: see text], where [Formula: see text] is a finite abelian group and [Formula: see text] is a field with characteristic not dividing the exponent of [Formula: see text].
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".