MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1662140301 · doi:10.3842/sigma.2015.089

On the Relationship between Two Notions of Compatibility for Bi-Hamiltonian Systems

2015· article· en· W1662140301 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSymmetry Integrability and Geometry Methods and Applications · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNonlinear Waves and Solitons
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCompatibility (geochemistry)Symplectic geometrySuperintegrable Hamiltonian systemMathematicsHamiltonian systemIntegrable systemUniquenessPure mathematicsCovariant Hamiltonian field theoryHamiltonian (control theory)Mathematical proofAffine transformationAlgebra over a fieldMathematical analysisGeometryMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bi-Hamiltonian structures are of great importance in the theory of integrable Hamiltonian systems. The notion of compatibility of symplectic structures is a key aspect of bi-Hamiltonian systems. Because of this, a few different notions of compatibility have been introduced. In this paper we show that, under some additional assumptions, compatibility in the sense of Magri implies a notion of compatibility due to Fass and Ratiu, that we dub bi-affine compatibility. We present two proofs of this fact. The first one uses the uniqueness of the connection parallelizing all the Hamiltonian vector fields tangent to the leaves of a Lagrangian foliation. The second proof uses Darboux-Nijenhuis coordinates and symplectic connections.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.308 · 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