MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023033110 · doi:10.1119/1.1456069

The quantum pendulum: Small and large

2002· article· en· W2023033110 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory L. Baker, James A. Blackburn, H. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum, superfluid, helium dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsPendulumClassical mechanicsQuantumDouble pendulumMeasure (data warehouse)Position (finance)Statistical physicsChaoticGravitationInverted pendulumQuantum mechanicsComputer scienceNonlinear system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The quantum pendulum finds application in surprising contexts. We use commercially available software to numerically solve the Schrödinger equation for a microscopic pendulum subject to molecular (electromagnetic) restoring forces, and a macroscopic pendulum subject to a gravitational restoring force. The dynamics of the microscopic quantum pendulum are closely related to molecular motions known as hindered rotations. We use standard probabilistic methods to predict whether this motion is weakly or strongly hindered at ambient temperature and test the prediction against experimental data for C2H6 and K2PtCl6. For the macroscopic gravitational pendulum, we examine the uncertainty in position and find, not surprisingly, that it is too small to measure physically, but is nevertheless relatively large compared to present-day limits in computation. The latter juxtaposition of computational precision with quantum uncertainty has consequences for the study of chaotic dynamics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations35
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PhysicsSame topicQuantum, superfluid, helium dynamicsFrench-language works237,207