MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034821539 · doi:10.1142/s0218127407019895

BIFURCATION OF LIMIT CYCLES IN A FOURTH-ORDER NEAR-HAMILTONIAN SYSTEM

2007· article· en· W2034821539 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsQuartic functionBifurcationInfinite-period bifurcationLimit (mathematics)Hamiltonian systemLimit cycleHamiltonian (control theory)Bifurcation theoryPlanarMathematical analysisMathematical physicsPure mathematicsPhysicsNonlinear systemQuantum mechanicsComputer scienceMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is concerned with bifurcation of limit cycles in a fourth-order near-Hamiltonian system with quartic perturbations. By bifurcation theory, proper perturbations are given to show that the system may have 20, 21 or 23 limit cycles with different distributions. This shows that H(4) ≥ 20, where H(n) is the Hilbert number for the second part of Hilbert's 16th problem. It is well known that H(2) ≥ 4, and it has been recently proved that H(3) ≥ 12. The number of limit cycles obtained in this paper greatly improves the best existing result, H(4) ≥ 15, for fourth-degree polynomial planar systems.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.514
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.330
Teacher spread0.305 · 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