MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison theorems for the Dirac equation with spin-symmetric and pseudo-spin-symmetric interactions

2010· article· en· W2084087038 on OpenAlexaff
Richard L. Hall, Özlem Yeşiltaş

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Non-Hermitian Physics
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBound stateEigenvalues and eigenvectorsScalar (mathematics)PhysicsQuantum mechanicsGround stateUpper and lower boundsDirac equationMathematical physicsSpin (aerodynamics)CoulombHarmonic oscillatorMathematicsMathematical analysisGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A single Dirac particle is bound in d dimensions by vector V(r) and scalar S(r) central potentials. The spin-symmetric S=V and pseudo-spin-symmetric S = - V cases are studied and it is shown that if two such potentials are ordered V^{(1)} \le V^{(2)}, then corresponding discrete eigenvalues are all similarly ordered E_{\kappa \nu}^{(1)} \le E_{\kappa \nu}^{(2)}. This comparison theorem allows us to use envelope theory to generate spectral approximations with the aid of known exact solutions, such as those for Coulombic, harmonic-oscillator, and Kratzer potentials. The example of the log potential V(r) = v\ln(r) is presented. Since $V(r)$ is a convex transformation of the soluble Coulomb potential, this leads to a compact analytical formula for lower-bounds to the discrete spectrum. The resulting ground-state lower-bound curve E_{L}(v) is compared with an accurate graph found by direct numerical integration.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalSame topicQuantum Mechanics and Non-Hermitian PhysicsFrench-language works237,207