MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903078513 · doi:10.2140/agt.2020.20.883

On the mod-ℓ homology of the classifying spacefor commutativity

2020· article· en· W2903078513 on OpenAlexaff
Cihan Okay, Ben Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueAlgebraic & Geometric Topology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicHomotopy and Cohomology in Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsHomotopyCombinatoricsHomology (biology)Classifying spaceHomotopy groupCommutative propertyAbelian groupQuotientLie groupIsomorphism (crystallography)Discrete mathematicsPure mathematicsCrystallography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the mod-$\ell$ homotopy type of classifying spaces for commutativity, $B(\mathbb{Z}, G)$, at a prime $\ell$. We show that the mod-$\ell$ homology of $B(\mathbb{Z}, G)$ depends on the mod-$\ell$ homotopy type of $BG$ when $G$ is a compact connected Lie group, in the sense that a mod-$\ell$ homology isomorphism $BG \to BH$ for such groups induces a mod-$\ell$ homology isomorphism $B(\mathbb{Z}, G) \to B(\mathbb{Z}, H)$. In order to prove this result, we study a presentation of $B(\mathbb{Z}, G)$ as a homotopy colimit over a topological poset of closed abelian subgroups, expanding on an idea of Adem and G\'omez. We also study the relationship between the mod-$\ell$ type of a Lie group $G(\mathbb{C})$ and the locally finite group $G(\bar{\mathbb{F}}_p)$ where $G$ is a Chevalley group. We see that the na\"ive analogue for $B(\mathbb{Z}, G)$ of the celebrated Friedlander--Mislin result cannot hold, but we show that it does hold after taking the homotopy quotient of a $G$ action on $B(\mathbb{Z}, G)$.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlgebraic & Geometric TopologySame topicHomotopy and Cohomology in Algebraic TopologyFrench-language works237,207