MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971092417 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1210.4947

Rotopulsators of the curved N-body problem

2012· preprint· en· W1971092417 on OpenAlexaff
Florin Diacu, Shima Kordlou

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2012
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsPacific Institute for the Mathematical SciencesUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsTorusUniquenessCurvatureMathematical analysisMotion (physics)Clifford torusConstant curvaturePure mathematicsGeometryPhysicsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the N-body problem in spaces of constant curvature and study its rotopulsators, i.e.\ solutions for which the configuration of the bodies rotates and changes size during the motion. Rotopulsators fall naturally into five groups: positive elliptic, positive elliptic-elliptic, negative elliptic, negative hyperbolic, and negative elliptic-hyperbolic, depending on the nature and number of their rotations and on whether they occur in spaces of positive or negative curvature. After obtaining existence criteria for each type of rotopulsator, we derive their conservation laws. We further deal with the existence and uniqueness of some classes of rotopulsators in the 2- and 3-body case and prove two general results about the qualitative behaviour of rotopulsators. More precisely, for positive curvature we show that there is no foliation of the 3-sphere with Clifford tori such that the motion of each body is confined to some Clifford torus. For negative curvature, a similar result is proved relative to foliations of the hyperbolic 3-sphere with hyperbolic cylinders.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.162
Teacher spread0.123 · 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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207