Analytic central orbits and their transformation group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A useful crude approximation for Abelian functions is developed and applied to orbits. The bound orbits in the power-law potentials A r−α take the simple form (ℓ/r)k= 1 +e cos (mφ), where k= 2 −α > 0 and ℓ and e are generalizations of the semi-latus-rectum and the eccentricity. m is given as a function of ‘eccentricity’. For nearly circular orbits m is , while the above orbit becomes exact at the energy of escape where e is 1 and m is k. Orbits in the logarithmic potential that gives rise to a constant circular velocity are derived via the limit α→ 0. For such orbits, r2 vibrates almost harmonically whatever the ‘eccentricity’. Unbound orbits in power-law potentials are given in an appendix. The transformation of orbits in one potential to give orbits in a different potential is used to determine orbits in potentials that are positive powers of r. These transformations are extended to form a group which associates orbits in sets of six potentials, e.g. there are corresponding orbits in the potentials proportional to r, r−2/3, r−3, r−6, r−4/3 and r4. A degeneracy reduces this to three, which are r−1, r2 and r−4 for the Keplerian case. A generalization of this group includes the isochrone with the Kepler set.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".