MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1567604614 · doi:10.1088/0951-7715/25/1/1

Analysis of \mathbb{C}P^{N-1} sigma models via projective structures

2011· article· en· W1567604614 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Post, A. M. Grundland

Bibliographic record

VenueNonlinearity · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNonlinear Waves and Solitons
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsSigmaImmersion (mathematics)Holomorphic functionEuclidean geometryInvariant (physics)ProjectorPure mathematicsProjective planeSurface (topology)Mathematical analysisAlgebra over a fieldMathematical physicsGeometryQuantum mechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper represents a study of projector solutions to the Euclidean CP N -1 sigma model in two dimensions and their associated surfaces immersed in the su(N ) Lie algebra.Any solution for the CP N -1 sigma model defined on the extended complex plane with finite action can be written as a raising operator acting on a holomorphic one.Here the proof is formulated in terms rank-1 projectors so it is explicitly gauge invariant.We apply these results to the analysis of surfaces associated with the CP N -1 models defined using the generalized Weierstrass formula for immersion.We show that the surfaces are conformally parametrized by the Lagrangian density, with finite area equal to the action of the model, and express several other geometrical characteristics of the surface in terms of the physical quantities of the model.Finally, we provide necessary and sufficient conditions that a surface be related to a CP N -1 sigma model.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
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

Citations24
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNonlinearitySame topicNonlinear Waves and SolitonsFrench-language works237,207