MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304172792 · doi:10.1017/nmj.2022.28

MINIMAL (-)TILTING INFINITE ALGEBRAS

2022· article· en· W4304172792 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueNagoya Mathematical Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAlgebraic structures and combinatorial models
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of CanadaQueen's University
FundersUniversité Paris-SudInstitut Henri PoincaréMitacsCanadian Defence Academy
KeywordsConjectureMathematicsSimple (philosophy)Pure mathematicsBrickOrder (exchange)Representation (politics)Algebra over a fieldEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Motivated by a new conjecture on the behavior of bricks, we start a systematic study of minimal $\tau $ -tilting infinite (min- $\tau $ -infinite, for short) algebras. In particular, we treat min- $\tau $ -infinite algebras as a modern counterpart of minimal representation-infinite algebras and show some of the fundamental similarities and differences between these families. We then relate our studies to the classical tilting theory and observe that this modern approach can provide fresh impetus to the study of some old problems. We further show that in order to verify the conjecture, it is sufficient to treat those min- $\tau $ -infinite algebras where almost all bricks are faithful. Finally, we also prove that minimal extending bricks have open orbits, and consequently obtain a simple proof of the brick analogue of the first Brauer–Thrall conjecture, recently shown by Schroll and Treffinger using some different techniques.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.263 · 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