MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388128808 · doi:10.2989/16073606.2023.2247720

Smallness in topology

2023· article· en· W4388128808 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

VenueQuaestiones Mathematicae · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicHomotopy and Cohomology in Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsTopological spaceCategory of topological spacesSeparation axiomHomotopyCategorical variableHomotopy categoryObject (grammar)Pure mathematicsSpace (punctuation)AxiomTopology (electrical circuits)Algebra over a fieldTopological tensor productCombinatoricsComputer scienceFunctional analysisArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quillen’s notion of small object and the Gabriel-Ulmer notion of finitely presentable or generated object are fundamental in homotopy theory and categorical algebra. Do these notions always lead to rather uninteresting classes of objects in categories of topological spaces, such as all finite discrete spaces, or just the empty space, as the examples and remarks in the existing literature may suggest?This article demonstrates that the establishment of full characterizations of these notions (and some natural variations thereof) in many familiar categories of spaces can be quite challenging and may lead to unexpected surprises. In fact, we show that there are significant differences in this regard even amongst the categories defined by the standard separation axioms, with the T1-separation condition standing out. The findings about these specific categories lead us to insights also when considering rather arbitrary full reflective subcategories of the category of all topological spaces.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.289 · 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