MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2590052059 · doi:10.1017/s0017089516000513

UNIT-REGULAR MODULES

2017· article· en· W2590052059 on OpenAlexafffund
H. Chen, W. K. Nicholson, Ying Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueGlasgow Mathematical Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicRings, Modules, and Algebras
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Zhejiang ProvinceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHangzhou Normal University
KeywordsMathematicsUnit (ring theory)Regular ringElement (criminal law)Endomorphism ringRing (chemistry)EndomorphismExtension (predicate logic)Pure mathematicsContext (archaeology)Von Neumann regular ringAlgebra over a fieldDiscrete mathematicsComputer scienceProgramming languageMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In 2014, the first two authors proved an extension to modules of a theorem of Camillo and Yu that an exchange ring has stable range 1 if and only if every regular element is unit-regular. Here, we give a Morita context version of a stronger theorem. The definition of regular elements in a module goes back to Zelmanowitz in 1972, but the notion of a unit-regular element in a module is new. In this paper, we study unit-regular elements and give several characterizations of them in terms of “stable” elements and “lifting” elements. Along the way, we give natural extensions to the module case of many results about unit-regular rings. The paper concludes with a discussion of when the endomorphism ring of a unit-regular module is a unit-regular ring.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlasgow Mathematical JournalSame topicRings, Modules, and AlgebrasFrench-language works237,207