MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2751664280 · doi:10.1098/rsos.170777

Huygens’ clocks revisited

2017· article· en· W2751664280 on OpenAlexafffund
Allan R. Willms, Petko M. Kitanov, William F. Langford

Bibliographic record

VenueRoyal Society Open Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNonlinear Dynamics and Pattern Formation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsClassical mechanicsPendulumHuygens–Fresnel principleGalileo (satellite navigation)Equivariant mapPhysical systemToroidTransformation (genetics)Motion (physics)BreatherWavefrontPhase (matter)MathematicsQuantum mechanicsNonlinear systemPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1665, Huygens observed that two identical pendulum clocks, weakly coupled through a heavy beam, soon synchronized with the same period and amplitude but with the two pendula swinging in opposite directions. This behaviour is now called anti-phase synchronization. This paper presents an analysis of the behaviour of a large class of coupled identical oscillators, including Huygens' clocks, using methods of equivariant bifurcation theory. The equivariant normal form for such systems is developed and the possible solutions are characterized. The transformation of the physical system parameters to the normal form parameters is given explicitly and applied to the physical values appropriate for Huygens' clocks, and to those of more recent studies. It is shown that Huygens' physical system could only exhibit anti-phase motion, explaining why Huygens observed exclusively this. By contrast, some more recent researchers have observed in-phase or other more complicated motion in their own experimental systems. Here, it is explained which physical characteristics of these systems allow for the existence of these other types of stable solutions. The present analysis not only accounts for these previously observed solutions in a unified framework, but also introduces behaviour not classified by other authors, such as a synchronized toroidal breather and a chaotic toroidal breather.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations63
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRoyal Society Open ScienceSame topicNonlinear Dynamics and Pattern FormationFrench-language works237,207