On Braidors: An Analogue of the Theory of Drinfel'd Associators for Braids in an Annulus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We develop the theory of braidors, an analogue of Drinfel’d’s theory of associators in which braids in an annulus are considered rather than braids in a disk. After defining braidors and showing they exist, we prove that a braidor is defined by a single equation, an analogue of a well-known theorem of Furusho [Furusho (2010)] in the case of associators. Next some progress towards an analogue of another key theorem, due to Drinfel’d [Drinfel’d (1991)] in the case of associators, is presented. The desired result in the annular case is that braidors can be constructed degree be degree. Integral to these results are annular versions GTa and GRTa of the Grothendieck-Teichmüller groups GT and GRT which act faithfully and transitively on the space of braidors. We conclude by providing surprising computational evidence that there is a bijection between the space of braidors and associators and that the annular versions of the Grothendieck-Teichmüller groups are in fact isomorphic to the usual versions potentially providing a new and in some ways simpler description of these important groups, although these computations rely on the unproven result to be meaningful.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".