The Grothendieck construction in the context of tangent categories
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Grothendieck construction establishes an equivalence between fibrations, a.k.a. fibred categories and indexed categories and is one of the fundamental results of category theory. Cockett and Cruttwell introduced the notion of fibrations into the context of tangent categories and proved that the fibres of a tangent fibration inherit a tangent structure from the total tangent category. The main goal of this paper is to provide a Grothendieck construction for tangent fibrations. Our first attempt will focus on providing a correspondence between tangent fibrations and indexed tangent categories, which are collections of tangent categories and tangent morphisms indexed by the objects and morphisms of a base tangent category. We will show that this construction inverts Cockett and Cruttwell’s result, but it does not provide a full equivalence between these two concepts. In order to understand how to define a genuine Grothendieck equivalence in the context of tangent categories, inspired by Street’s formal approach to monad theory we introduce a new concept: tangent objects. We show that tangent fibrations arise as tangent objects of a suitable $2$ -category and we employ this characterisation to lift the Grothendieck construction between fibrations and indexed categories to a genuine Grothendieck equivalence between tangent fibrations and tangent indexed categories.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it