MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975552958 · doi:10.1063/1.4790840

Bouncing droplets on a billiard table

2013· article· en· W1975552958 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueChaos An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum chaos and dynamical systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDynamical billiardsQuasiperiodic functionForcing (mathematics)ChaoticBifurcationTrajectorySurface (topology)Square (algebra)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a set of experiments, Couder et al. demonstrate that an oscillating fluid bed may propagate a bouncing droplet through the guidance of the surface waves. I present a dynamical systems model, in the form of an iterative map, for a droplet on an oscillating bath. I examine the droplet bifurcation from bouncing to walking, and prescribe general requirements for the surface wave to support stable walking states. I show that in addition to walking, there is a region of large forcing that may support the chaotic motion of the droplet. Using the map, I then investigate the droplet trajectories in a square (billiard ball) domain. I show that in large domains, the long time trajectories are either non-periodic dense curves or approach a quasiperiodic orbit. In contrast, in small domains, at low forcing, trajectories tend to approach an array of circular attracting sets. As the forcing increases, the attracting sets break down and the droplet travels throughout space.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.290 · 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