Calculation of the propagation amplitude in the case of a Coulomb interaction via time-independent mean-field theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The exact study of many-body microscopic systems is impossible when the number of particles is large (N ≥ 3). Approximate methods are then used. The time-independent mean-field (TIMF) approximation has been proposed for the description of collisions in many-body systems. Collision amplitudes are derived by the use of a variational principle and the choice of trial functions as products of single-particle orbitals. Resulting mean-field equations with a nonvanishing right-hand side turn out to be a generalization of the traditional Hartree or Hatree–Fock type equations. These TIMF equations are successfully solved numerically for the case of short-range forces. In this paper, we test the validity of this theory for the Coulomb interaction between two particles, that is, a long-range interaction. A numerical comparison between the exact and the mean-field solutions is conducted PACS Nos.: 31.15.Ne, 31.15.Pf, 21.45.+v,25.10.-i
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".