MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982088565 · doi:10.1142/s0218127405013289

TWELVE LIMIT CYCLES IN A CUBIC CASE OF THE 16th HILBERT PROBLEM

2005· article· en· W1982088565 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

VenueInternational Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsLimit (mathematics)Focus (optics)Saddle pointMathematicsLimit cycleCubic functionPlanarPerturbation (astronomy)SaddlePolynomialInfinite-period bifurcationMathematical analysisApplied mathematicsBifurcationMathematical optimizationComputer scienceGeometryHopf bifurcationPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we prove the existence of twelve small (local) limit cycles in a planar system with third-degree polynomial functions. The best result so far in literature for a cubic order planar system is eleven limit cycles. The system considered in this paper has a saddle point at the origin and two focus points which are symmetric about the origin. This system was studied by the authors and shown to exhibit ten small limit cycles: five around each of the focus points. It will be proved in this paper that the system can have twelve small limit cycles. The major tasks involved in the proof are to compute the focus values and solve coupled enormous large polynomial equations. A computationally efficient perturbation technique based on multiple scales is employed to calculate the focus values. Moreover, the focus values are perturbed to show that the system can exactly have twelve small limit cycles.

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)0.000
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 score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.302 · 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