MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2761648792 · doi:10.1215/00127094-2019-0032

Noncommutative boundaries and the ideal structure of reduced crossed products

2019· article· en· W2761648792 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Kennedy, Christopher Schafhauser

Bibliographic record

VenueDuke Mathematical Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Operator Algebra Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsNoncommutative geometryCrossed productIdeal (ethics)Pure mathematicsUnitalInvariant (physics)Dynamical systems theoryPrime idealCommutative propertyBoundary (topology)Dynamical system (definition)Algebra over a fieldPrime (order theory)CombinatoricsMathematical analysisMathematical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A C∗-dynamical system is said to have the ideal separation property if every ideal in the corresponding crossed product arises from an invariant ideal in the C∗-algebra. In this paper we characterize this property for unital C∗-dynamical systems over discrete groups. To every C∗-dynamical system we associate a “twisted” partial C∗-dynamical system that encodes much of the structure of the action. This system can often be “untwisted,” for example, when the algebra is commutative or when the algebra is prime and a certain specific subgroup has vanishing Mackey obstruction. In this case, we obtain relatively simple necessary and sufficient conditions for the ideal separation property. A key idea is a notion of noncommutative boundary for a C∗-dynamical system that generalizes Furstenberg’s notion of topological boundary for a 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 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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations31
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDuke Mathematical JournalSame topicAdvanced Operator Algebra ResearchFrench-language works237,207