MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2590309738 · doi:10.1090/proc/14063

On optimal Scott sentences of finitely generated algebraic structures

2018· article· lv· W2590309738 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew Harrison‐Trainor, Meng-Che Ho

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the American Mathematical Society · 2018
Typearticle
Languagelv
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputability, Logic, AI Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAlgebraic numberFinitely-generated abelian groupMathematicsAlgebra over a fieldPure mathematicsLinguisticsComputer sciencePhilosophyMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scott showed that for every countable structure A \mathcal {A} , there is a sentence of the infinitary logic L ω 1 ω \mathcal {L}_{\omega _1\omega } , called a Scott sentence for A \mathcal {A} , whose countable models are exactly the isomorphic copies of A \mathcal {A} . Thus, the least quantifier complexity of a Scott sentence of a structure is an invariant that measures the complexity “describing” the structure. Knight et al. have studied the Scott sentences of many structures. In particular, Knight and Saraph showed that a finitely generated structure always has a Σ 3 0 \Sigma ^0_3 Scott sentence. We give a characterization of the finitely generated structures for which the Σ 3 0 \Sigma ^0_3 Scott sentence is optimal. One application of this result is to give a construction of a finitely generated group where the Σ 3 0 \Sigma ^0_3 Scott sentence is optimal.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the American Mathematical SocietySame topicComputability, Logic, AI AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207