MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064718994 · doi:10.1103/physreve.81.056602

Complex group velocity and energy transport in absorbing media

2010· article· en· W2064718994 on OpenAlexaff
Vladimir Gerasik, Marek Stastna

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review E · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMechanical and Optical Resonators
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroup velocityDissipative systemPhysicsEnergy fluxDissipationGroup (periodic table)Energy (signal processing)ViscoelasticityClassical mechanicsEnergy transportQuantum mechanicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Complex group velocity is common in absorbing and active media, yet its precise physical meaning is unclear. While in the case of a nondissipative medium the group velocity of propagating waves Cg=dω/dk is exactly equal to the observable energy velocity (defined as the ratio between the energy flux and the total energy density) Cg=F/E , in a dissipative medium Cg=dω/dk is in general a complex quantity which cannot be associated with the velocity of energy transport. Nevertheless, we find that the complex group velocity may contain information about the energy transport as well as the energy dissipated in the medium. The presented analysis is intended to expound the connection between the complex group velocity and energy transport characteristics for a class of hyperbolic dissipative dynamical systems. Dissipation mechanisms considered herein include viscous and viscoelastic types of damping. Both cases of spatial and temporal decay are discussed. The presented approach stems from the Lagrangian formulation and is illustrated with identities that relate the complex group velocity and energy transport characteristics for the damped Klein-Gordon equation; Maxwell's equations, governing electromagnetic waves in partially conducting media; and Biot's theory, governing acoustic wave propagation in porous solids.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations56
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ESame topicMechanical and Optical ResonatorsFrench-language works237,207