MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398239363 · doi:10.1112/topo.12336

Non‐accessible localizations

2024· article· en· W4398239363 on OpenAlexaff
J. Daniel Christensen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Topology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicHomotopy and Cohomology in Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In a 2005 paper, Casacuberta, Scevenels, and Smith construct a homotopy idempotent functor on the category of simplicial sets with the property that whether it can be expressed as localization with respect to a map is independent of the ZFC axioms. We show that this construction can be carried out in homotopy type theory. More precisely, we give a general method of associating to a suitable (possibly large) family of maps, a reflective subuniverse of any universe . When specialized to an appropriate family, this produces a localization which when interpreted in the ‐topos of spaces agrees with the localization corresponding to . Our approach generalizes the approach of Casacuberta et al. (Adv. Math. 197 (2005), no. 1, 120–139) in two ways. First, by working in homotopy type theory, our construction can be interpreted in any ‐topos. Second, while the local objects produced by Casacuberta et al. are always 1‐types, our construction can produce ‐types, for any . This is new, even in the ‐topos of spaces. In addition, by making use of universes, our proof is very direct. Along the way, we prove many results about “small” types that are of independent interest. As an application, we give a new proof that separated localizations exist. We also give results that say when a localization with respect to a family of maps can be presented as localization with respect to a single map, and show that the simplicial model satisfies a strong form of the axiom of choice that implies that sets cover and that the law of excluded middle holds.

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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.340
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of TopologySame topicHomotopy and Cohomology in Algebraic TopologyFrench-language works237,207