MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2148049557 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.87.024002

Geometry of Lax pairs: Particle motion and Killing-Yano tensors

2013· article· en· W2148049557 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Marco Cariglia, Valeri P. Frolov, Pavel Krtouš, David Kubizňák

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKillam TrustsUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsLax pairGeodesicMetric tensorMathematical physicsTensor (intrinsic definition)Equations of motionPhysicsChristoffel symbolsClassical mechanicsMotion (physics)Manifold (fluid mechanics)Connection (principal bundle)Mathematical analysisMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A geometric formulation of the Lax pair equation on a curved manifold is studied using the phase-space formalism. The corresponding (covariantly conserved) Lax tensor is defined and the method of generation of constants of motion from it is discussed. It is shown that when the Hamilton equations of motion are used, the conservation of the Lax tensor translates directly to the well-known Lax pair equation, with one matrix identified with components of the Lax tensor and the other matrix constructed from the (metric) connection. A generalization to Clifford objects is also discussed. Nontrivial examples of Lax tensors for geodesic and charged particle motion are found in spacetimes admitting a hidden symmetry of Killing-Yano tensors.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations16
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology→Same topicBlack Holes and Theoretical Physics→French-language works237,207→