MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975621833 · doi:10.1088/0305-4470/38/30/014

Invariant solutions of a supersymmetric fluid model

2005· article· en· W1975621833 on OpenAlexaff
A. J. Hariton, Véronique Hussin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and General · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNonlinear Waves and Solitons
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInvariant (physics)MathematicsPhysicsMathematical physicsPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present a method for constructing invariant solutions of the supersymmetric Chaplygin gas in (1 + 1) dimensions. This approach is based on the use of a generalized Legendre transformation, through which we transform the original field equations into a new set of equations involving the velocity and sound speed of the fluid as independent variables. We describe the Lie symmetry properties of the equations in both coordinate systems, and make use of a systematic subgroup classification to determine certain classes of group-invariant solutions of the transformed field equations. Where it is possible, the Legendre transformation is applied in reverse in order to obtain equivalent solutions of the standard field equations. A number of analytic solutions of the supersymmetric Chaplygin gas in one spatial dimension are found. In addition, certain basic elements of a possible extension of our method to the supersymmetric Chaplygin gas in two spatial dimensions have been formulated. In particular, the (2 + 1)-dimensional analogue of the transformed equation has been determined, and some of its Lie point symmetries have been identified. For a certain specific case, it has been demonstrated how an invariant solution can be inverted and then extended to a solution of the planar supersymmetric 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 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 score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and GeneralSame topicNonlinear Waves and SolitonsFrench-language works237,207