MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403679098 · doi:10.1090/tran/9338

Partial desingularization

2024· preprint· en· W4403679098 on OpenAlexafffund
André Belotto da Silva, Edward Bierstone, Ramon Ronzon Lavie

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the American Mathematical Society · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We address the following question of partial desingularization preserving normal crossings . Given an algebraic (or analytic) variety X X in characteristic zero, can we find a finite sequence of blowings-up preserving the normal-crossings locus of X X , after which the transform X ′ X’ of X X has only singularities from an explicit finite list of minimal singularities , which we define using the determinants of circulant matrices. In the case of surfaces, for example, the pinch point or Whitney umbrella is the only singularity needed in addition to normal crossings. We develop techniques for factorization (splitting) of a monic polynomial with regular (or analytic) coefficients, satisfying a generic normal crossings hypothesis, which we use together with resolution of singularities techniques to find local circulant normal forms of singularities. These techniques in their current state are enough for a positive answer to the question above, for dim ⁡ X ≤ 4 \dim X \leq 4 , or in arbitrary dimension if we preserve normal crossings only of order at most three. In these cases, minimal singularities have smooth normalization.

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)0.003
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the American Mathematical SocietySame topicPhonetics and Phonology ResearchFrench-language works237,207