MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963432530 · doi:10.4153/cjm-2000-023-2

The Level 2 and 3 Modular Invariants for the Orthogonal Algebras

2000· article· en· W2963432530 on OpenAlexafffund
Terry Gannon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Mathematics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial models
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematicsAffine transformationPure mathematicsUniquenessInvariant (physics)Conformal mapCombinatoricsAlgebra over a fieldMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The ‘1-loop partition function’ of a rational conformal field theory is a sesquilinear combination of characters, invariant under a natural action of SL2( ), and obeying an integrality condition. Classifying these is a clearly defined mathematical problem, and at least for the affine Kac-Moody algebras tends to have interesting solutions. This paper finds for each affine algebraBr(1)andDr(1)all of these at levelk≤ 3. Previously, only those at level 1 were classified. An extraordinary number of exceptionals appear at level 2—theBr(1),Dr(1)level 2 classification is easily the most anomalous one known and this uniqueness is the primary motivation for this paper. The only level 3 exceptionals occur forB2(1)≅C2(1)andD7(1). TheB2,3andD7,3exceptionals are cousins of the ε6-exceptional and ε8-exceptional, respectively, in the A-D-E classification forA1(1), while the level 2 exceptionals are related to the lattice invariants of affineu(1).

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations12
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of MathematicsSame topicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial modelsFrench-language works237,207