MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413966168 · doi:10.70930/tac/p5n2c9jt

On the representability of actionsin a semi-abelian category

2005· article· en· W4413966168 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Francis Borceux, George Janelidze, G. M. Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueTheory and applications of categories · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRS
KeywordsAbelian groupMathematicsPure mathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a semi-abelian category V and we write Act(G, X) for the set of actions of the object G on the object X, in the sense of the theory of semi-direct products in V. We investigate the representability of the functor Act(-, X) in the case where V is locally presentable, with finite limits commuting with filtered colimits.This contains all categories of models of a semi-abelian theory in a Grothendieck topos, thus in particular all semi-abelian varieties of universal algebra.For such categories, we prove first that the representability of Act(-, X) reduces to the preservation of binary coproducts.Next we give both a very simple necessary condition and a very simple sufficient condition, in terms of amalgamation properties, for the preservation of binary coproducts by the functor Act(-, X) in a general semi-abelian category.Finally, we exhibit the precise form of the more involved "if and only if" amalgamation property corresponding to the representability of actions: this condition is in particular related to a new notion of "normalization of a morphism".We provide also a wide supply of algebraic examples and counter-examples, giving in particular evidence of the relevance of the object representing Act(-, X), when it turns out to exist.

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 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.237 · 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.

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

Citations10
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheory and applications of categoriesSame topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207