MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Algebraic method for finding equivalence groups

2015· article· en· W238445507 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Bihlo, Elsa Dos Santos Cardoso‐Bihlo, Roman O. Popovych

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNonlinear Waves and Solitons
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMatrix equivalenceEquivalence (formal languages)MathematicsAlgebra over a fieldEquivalence relationComputationAlgebraic numberNonlinear systemQuotient algebraCongruence relationAutomorphismGroup (periodic table)Differential algebraic geometryGroup theoryDifferential equationPure mathematicsDifferential algebraic equationAlgebra representationMathematical analysisAlgorithmOrdinary differential equation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The algebraic method for computing the complete point symmetry group of a system of differential equations is extended to finding the complete equivalence group of a class of such systems. The extended method uses the knowledge of the corresponding equivalence algebra. Two versions of the method are presented, where the first involves the automorphism group of this algebra and the second is based on a list of its megaideals. We illustrate the megaideal-based version of the method with the computation of the complete equivalence group of a class of nonlinear wave equations with applications in nonlinear elasticity.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicNonlinear Waves and SolitonsFrench-language works237,207