MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963968559 · doi:10.1139/p07-055

Symmetry, quasisymmetry, and critical phenomena

2007· article· en· W1963968559 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
D.J. Rowe

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum chaos and dynamical systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsSymmetry (geometry)Theoretical physicsSpontaneous symmetry breakingHomogeneous spaceGlobal symmetrySymmetry breakingSymmetry operationExplicit symmetry breakingPhase transitionSymmetry numberOrder (exchange)Rotational symmetryQuantum mechanicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This presentation is an analysis of the role of symmetry in second-order quantum phase transitions. It seeks to explain why transitions between phases of systems, associated with different symmetries, exhibit critical phenomena. It transpires that a system in one phase, tends to hold onto the symmetry associated with that phase until a breaking point is reached at which a rapid transition occurs to a new phase associated with a different symmetry. Understanding what is happening presents the challenge of explaining how a system "holds on" to a symmetry in the face of strong symmetry-breaking interactions. The explanation is of fundamental interest in physics, for understanding why models with built in symmetries often work extremely well even when the models ignore large symmetry-breaking interactions that are known to be present. When this phenomenon occurs, we say that the system has a quasidynamical symmetry. This concept is of interest in mathematics because it turns out that quasidyndamical symmetries are the physical realizations of a new concept in group theory, which we refer to as an embedded representation. PACS Nos.: 21.60.Fw, 21.60.Ev, 64.6–.Ht, 68.18.Jk

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicQuantum chaos and dynamical systemsFrench-language works237,207