MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2471258549 · doi:10.1103/physreve.93.066104

Reply to “Comment on ‘Fractional quantum mechanics’ and ‘Fractional Schrödinger equation’ ”

2016· article· en· W2471258549 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStatistical Mechanics and Entropy
Canadian institutionsTop Hat (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUncertainty principleQuantum statistical mechanicsPhysicsQuantum mechanicsQuantum dissipationMathematicsQuantumStatistical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fractional uncertainty relation is a mathematical formulation of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in the framework of fractional quantum mechanics. Two mistaken statements presented in the Comment have been revealed. The origin of each mistaken statement has been clarified and corrected statements have been made. A map between standard quantum mechanics and fractional quantum mechanics has been presented to emphasize the features of fractional quantum mechanics and to avoid misinterpretations of the fractional uncertainty relation. It has been shown that the fractional probability current equation is correct in the area of its applicability. Further studies have to be done to find meaningful quantum physics problems with involvement of the fractional probability current density vector and the extra term emerging in the framework of fractional quantum mechanics.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.304 · 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