MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220987506 · doi:10.3390/axioms11030118

Topological Transcendental Fields

2022· article· en· W4220987506 on OpenAlexafffund
Taboka Chalebgwa, Sidney A. Morris

Bibliographic record

VenueAxioms · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical and Theoretical Analysis
Canadian institutionsFields Institute for Research in Mathematical Sciences
FundersDivision of Mathematical SciencesFields Institute for Research in Mathematical Sciences
KeywordsTranscendental numberMathematicsMetrization theoremTopology (electrical circuits)Connected spaceSubspace topologyTopological algebraField (mathematics)Separable spaceTopological spaceTopological vector spaceRational numberIsolated pointPure mathematicsCombinatoricsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article initiates the study of topological transcendental fields F which are subfields of the topological field C of all complex numbers such that F only consists of rational numbers and a nonempty set of transcendental numbers. F, with the topology it inherits as a subspace of C, is a topological field. Each topological transcendental field is a separable metrizable zero-dimensional space and algebraically is Q(T), the extension of the field of rational numbers by a set T of transcendental numbers. It is proven that there exist precisely 2ℵ0 countably infinite topological transcendental fields and each is homeomorphic to the space Q of rational numbers with its usual topology. It is also shown that there is a class of 22ℵ0 of topological transcendental fields of the form Q(T) with T a set of Liouville numbers, no two of which are homeomorphic.

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 score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAxiomsSame topicMathematical and Theoretical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207