MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

On Clean Group Rings

2010· book-chapter· en· W69397485 on OpenAlexaff
Yiqiang Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueBirkhäuser Basel eBooks · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicRings, Modules, and Algebras
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRing (chemistry)Group ringGroup (periodic table)Unit (ring theory)IdempotenceMathematicsOrder (exchange)Pure mathematicsAlgebra over a fieldCombinatoricsChemistryMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A ring with unity is called clean (uniquely clean) if each of its elements is (uniquely) the sum of an idempotent and a unit. When is a group ring clean? The question seems to be difficult in general. For example, it is even unknown when the group ring of a cyclic group of order 2 is clean. After reviewing the known results, we present several new partial answers to the question. We also give a different proof of the main result on uniquely clean group rings obtained by Chen, Nicholson and Zhou [6].

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.215 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBirkhäuser Basel eBooksSame topicRings, Modules, and AlgebrasFrench-language works237,207