MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413612163 · doi:10.1017/s1446788725101146

ON TOEPLITZ ALGEBRAS OF PRODUCT SYSTEMS

2025· article· en· W4413612163 on OpenAlexafffund
Elias G. Katsoulis, Marcelo Laca, Camila F. Sehnem

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Australian Mathematical Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Topics in Algebra
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsToeplitz matrixMathematicsPure mathematicsAlgebra over a fieldProduct (mathematics)Geometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the setting of product systems over group-embeddable monoids, we consider nuclearity of the associated Toeplitz C*-algebra in relation to nuclearity of the coefficient algebra. Our work goes beyond the known cases of single correspondences and compactly aligned product systems over right least common multiple (LCM) monoids. Specifically, given a product system over a submonoid of a group, we show, under technical assumptions, that the fixed-point algebra of the gauge action is nuclear if and only if the coefficient algebra is nuclear; when the group is amenable, we conclude that this happens if and only if the Toeplitz algebra itself is nuclear. Our main results imply that nuclearity of the Toeplitz algebra is equivalent to nuclearity of the coefficient algebra for every full product system of Hilbert bimodules over abelian monoids, over $ax+b$ -monoids of integral domains and over Baumslag–Solitar monoids $BS^+(m,n)$ that admit an amenable embedding, which we provide for m and n relatively prime.

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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.298 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Australian Mathematical SocietySame topicAdvanced Topics in AlgebraFrench-language works237,207