MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962797250 · doi:10.4153/cjm-2012-045-3

Symbolic Powers Versus Regular Powers of Ideals of General Points in ℙ<sup>1</sup>× ℙ<sup>1</sup>

2012· article· en· W2962797250 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Mathematics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCommutative Algebra and Its Applications
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCompute CanadaNational Security Agency
KeywordsMathematicsIdeal (ethics)Focus (optics)Algebra over a fieldThe SymbolicPower (physics)Symbolic powerPure mathematicsLawPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent work of Ein–Lazarsfeld–Smith and Hochster–Huneke raised the problem of which symbolic powers of an ideal are contained in a given ordinary power of the ideal. Bocci–Harbourne developed methods to address this problem, which involve asymptotic numerical characters of symbolic powers of the ideals. Most of the work done up to now has been done for ideals defining 0-dimensional subschemes of projective space. Here we focus on certain subschemes given by a union of lines in ℙ 3 that can also be viewed as points in ℙ 1 ✗ ℙ 1 . We also obtain results on the closely related problem, studied by Hochster and by Li and Swanson, of determining situations for which each symbolic power of an ideal is an ordinary power.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.260 · 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