MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062561585 · doi:10.1017/s095679250100465x

Direct construction method for conservation laws of partial differential equations Part I: Examples of conservation law classifications

2002· article· en· W2062561585 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Applied Mathematics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNonlinear Waves and Solitons
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBrock University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConservation lawPartial differential equationNonlinear systemMathematicsHomogeneous spaceApplied mathematicsLawMathematical analysisPhysicsPolitical scienceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An effective algorithmic method is presented for finding the local conservation laws for partial differential equations with any number of independent and dependent variables. The method does not require the use or existence of a variational principle and reduces the calculation of conservation laws to solving a system of linear determining equations similar to that for finding symmetries. An explicit construction formula is derived which yields a conservation law for each solution of the determining system. In the first of two papers (Part I), examples of nonlinear wave equations are used to exhibit the method. Classification results for conservation laws of these equations are obtained. In a second paper (Part II), a general treatment of the method is given.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.211 · 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