MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086605529 · doi:10.1103/physreva.62.016501

Comment on “Cusp relations for local strongly decaying properties in electronic systems”

2000· article· en· W2086605529 on OpenAlexaff
Jiahu Wang, Hartmut Schmider, Vedene H. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review A · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsCusp (singularity)Statistical physicsIdentity (music)Mathematical physicsQuantum mechanicsTheoretical physicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a recent paper [Phys. Rev. A 52, 2645 (1995)], Liu et al. presented an approach for obtaining physical properties at the nuclear cusps. They compared it with the Hiller-Sucher-Feinberg (HSF) identity [Phys. Rev. A 18, 2399 (1978)] and found theirs to be superior. It is shown here that this conclusion is based on the comparison on equal footing of different types of identities, namely physical in the case of HSF and mathematical in the case of Liu et al.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0020.008
Open science0.0080.003
Research integrity0.0220.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.006

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.276 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations4
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ASame topicAdvanced Chemical Physics StudiesFrench-language works237,207