MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252141734 · doi:10.4171/owr/2017/21

Algebraic Groups

2018· article· en· W4252141734 on OpenAlexaff
Corrado De Concini, Peter Littelmann, Zinovy Reichstein

Bibliographic record

VenueOberwolfach Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematics and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsPure mathematicsAlgebra over a fieldAlgebraic numberMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Linear algebraic groups is an active research area in contemporary mathematics. It has rich connections to algebraic geometry, representation theory, algebraic combinatorics, number theory, algebraic topology, and differential equations. The foundations of this theory were laid by A. Borel, C. Chevalley, J.-P. Serre, T. A. Springer and J. Tits in the second half of the 20th century. The Oberwolfach workshops on algebraic groups, led by Springer and Tits, played an important role in this effort as a forum for researchers, meeting at approximately 3 year intervals since the 1960s. The present workshop continued this tradition, covering a range of topics, with an emphasis on recent developments in the subject.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOberwolfach ReportsSame topicMathematics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207