MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3101672505

Homomorphisms between mapping class groups

2016· article· en· W3101672505 on OpenAlexaff
Javier Aramayona, Juan Souto

Bibliographic record

VenueArrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGeometric and Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsGenusHolomorphic functionBoundary (topology)HomomorphismMapping class groupEndomorphismEmbeddingIsomorphism (crystallography)CombinatoricsType (biology)Open mapping theorem (functional analysis)Pure mathematicsSurface (topology)GeometryMathematical analysisBanach spaceEberlein–Šmulian theoremCrystallography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Suppose that X and Y are surfaces of finite topologi-cal type, where X has genus g ≥ 6 and Y has genus at most 2g−1; in addition, suppose that Y is not closed if it has genus 2g − 1. Our main result asserts that every non-trivial homomorphism Map(X) → Map(Y) is induced by an embedding, i.e. a combina-tion of forgetting punctures, deleting boundary components and subsurface embeddings. In particular, if X has no boundary then every non-trivial endomorphism Map(X) → Map(X) is in fact an isomorphism. As an application of our main theorem we obtain that, under the same hypotheses on genus, if X and Y have finite analytic type then every non-constant holomorphic map M(X) → M(Y) between the corresponding moduli spaces is a forgetful map. In particular, there are no such holomorphic maps unless X and Y have the same genus and Y has at most as many marked points as X. A nuestras madres, cada uno a la suya. 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)0.003
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.228 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations34
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology)Same topicGeometric and Algebraic TopologyFrench-language works237,207