Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ever since the introduction of motivic homotopy theory, as a well-proposed approximation of Grothendieck's dream, algebraic geometers then have the chance to study schemes via a homotopy theory. However topologists also found that lifting the usual homotopy theory over a sphere spectrum to the motivic homotopy category over a motivic bigraded sphere spectrum can make breakthroughs on elementary topology problems (such as computing homotopy groups of spheres, motivic Adams spectral sequences and so on). On the other hand, topological spaces can be all regarded as Grothendieck topoi, as in Lurie's work on ultracategories. Following Scholze, Lurie we systematically consider an $(\infty,\infty)$-ultracategorical universal motivic formalism, which directly fits into Lurie's framework on ultracategories, where we construct universal ultragestalten through motivicalization. The gestalten higher categorical six-functor formalism then allows us to consider the following classes of problems of different flavors: (I) Six-functor formalism for all Grothendieck sites and Grothendieck topoi; (II) Six-functor formalism for all topological spaces. We then in this paper got the chance to apply this to many problems in $p$-adic geometry and $p$-adic functional analysis: (I) $(\infty,\infty)$-categoricalization of motivic $+$-de Rham prismatization approach to generalization of Colmez's Montréal functor; (II) $(\infty,\infty)$-categoricalization of motivic generalized Riemann-Hilbert correspondence after Bhatt-Lurie; (III) $(\infty,\infty)$-categorical universal motives of derived algebraic stacks over $\mathbb{E}_\infty$-ring objects in the derived $\infty$-category of sphere spectrum, via universal motives of large Fargues-Fontaine gestalten, in families.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".