MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049697654 · doi:10.1017/s0956792501004715

A comparison of four approaches to the calculation of conservation laws

2002· article· en· W2049697654 on OpenAlexafffund
Thomas Wolf

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Applied Mathematics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNonlinear Waves and Solitons
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsConservation lawOdeMathematicsPolynomialOrdinary differential equationApplied mathematicsVariable (mathematics)Algebra over a fieldDifferential equationLawPure mathematicsMathematical analysisPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper compares computational aspects of four approaches to compute conservation laws of single Differential Equations (DEs) or systems of them, ODEs and PDEs. The only restriction, required by two of the four corresponding computer algebra programs, is that each DE has to be solvable for a leading derivative. Extra constraints for the conservation laws can be specified. Examples include new conservation laws that are non-polynomial in the functions, that have an explicit variable dependence and families of conservation laws involving arbitrary functions. The following equations are investigated in examples: Ito, Liouville, Burgers, Kadomtsev–Petviashvili, Karney–Sen–Chu–Verheest, Boussinesq, Tzetzeica, Benney.

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)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.179
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.101 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations163
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Applied MathematicsSame topicNonlinear Waves and SolitonsFrench-language works237,207