MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Investigation of Orbit-Stabilizer Theorem and Its Applications

2025· article· en· W4415181922 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTheoretical and Natural Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerospace Engineering and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrbit (dynamics)Lemma (botany)Stabilizer (aeronautics)Fundamental theoremBrouwer fixed-point theoremGroup (periodic table)Element (criminal law)Group theoryAction (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Group theory is an important area of modern mathematics, and the orbit-stabilizer theorem is a significant conclution in all of the group theory as it is the basic of many other conclusions. This article introduces theory of group action and the definition of orbit and stabilizer as a background for orbit stabilizer theorem. The theorem itself was then stated with proof. Orbit-stabilizer theorem says that when a finite group is acting on a finite set, the orbit of any element of the set must have the same size with number of left cosets of stabilizer of the element in the group. The proof was then given using the fact that two sets with a bijection between them must have same size. Examples of applications in the proof of Cauchy’s theorem and Burnside’s lemma were given to show the importance of orbit stabilizer theorem in Group theory. Orbit-stabilizer theorem is a central part in the proof of both of those results.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.579
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.190 · 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