MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964037868 · doi:10.4310/ajm.2017.v21.n2.a4

Elliptic minuscule pairs and splitting abelian varieties

2017· article· en· W2964037868 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Journal of Mathematics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic Geometry and Number Theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsMonodromyAbelian groupSimple (philosophy)Abelian varietyPure mathematicsTorusAlgebraic numberField (mathematics)Abelian variety of CM-typeVariety (cybernetics)CombinatoricsElementary abelian groupMathematical analysisRank of an abelian groupGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We partially answer, in terms of monodromy, Murty and Patankar's question: Given an absolutely simple abelian variety over a number field, does it have simple specializations at a set of places of positive Dirichlet density? The answer is based on the classification of pairs (G,V) consisting of a semi-simple algebraic group G over a non-archimedean local field and an absolutely irreducible representation V of G such that G admits a maximal torus acting irreducibly on V.

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 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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.255 · 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