Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Given a double vector bundle $D\to M$, we define a bigraded bundle of algebras $W(D)\to M$ called the “Weil algebra bundle”. The space ${\mathcal{W}}(D)$ of sections of this algebra bundle ”realizes” the algebra of functions on the supermanifold $D[1,1]$. We describe in detail the relations between the Weil algebra bundles of $D$ and those of the double vector bundles $D^{\prime},\ D^{\prime\prime}$ obtained from $D$ by duality operations. We show that ${\mathcal{V}\mathcal{B}}$-algebroid structures on $D$ are equivalent to horizontal or vertical differentials on two of the Weil algebras and a Gerstenhaber bracket on the 3rd. Furthermore, Mackenzie’s definition of a double Lie algebroid is equivalent to compatibilities between two such structures on any one of the three Weil algebras. In particular, we obtain a ”classical” version of Voronov’s result characterizing double Lie algebroid structures. In the case that $D=TA$ is the tangent prolongation of a Lie algebroid, we find that ${\mathcal{W}}(D)$ is the Weil algebra of the Lie algebroid, as defined by Mehta and Abad–Crainic. We show that the deformation complex of Lie algebroids, the theory of IM forms and IM multi-vector fields, and 2-term representations up to homotopy all have natural interpretations in terms of our Weil algebras.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".