MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fuzzifications of Almost Ideals in Ternary Semirings

2025· article· W4417272633 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Napaporn Sarasit, Ronnason Chinram, Amornrat Rattana

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Analysis and Applications · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicFuzzy and Soft Set Theory
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSemiringTernary operationIdeal (ethics)Fuzzy logicFuzzy set

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce an almost ideal (shortly A-ideal) and a fuzzy A-ideal of a ternary semiring. We present that an A-ideal of a ternary semiring is formed by the union of A-ideals, but not by their intersection. We further study the defining properties of minimal fuzzy A-ideals in ternary semirings. Additionally, we relate the A-ideals of ternary semirings to their fuzzifications and find that an A-ideal is equivalent to its characteristic mapping, while a fuzzy A-ideal is equivalent to its support. Moreover, we demonstrate that its characteristic mapping is similar to that of a minimum A-ideal.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.377 · 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
GenreMethods

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Analysis and ApplicationsSame topicFuzzy and Soft Set TheoryFrench-language works237,207