MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788496452 · doi:10.1098/rspa.2017.0814

Rogue periodic waves of the focusing nonlinear Schrödinger equation

2018· article· en· W2788496452 on OpenAlexafffund
Jinbing Chen, Dmitry E. Pelinovsky

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicNonlinear Waves and Solitons
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaMcMaster University
KeywordsRogue waveEigenfunctionBreatherElliptic functionPhysicsMathematical analysisPeriodic functionJacobian matrix and determinantPeriodic waveNonlinear Schrödinger equationNonlinear systemEigenvalues and eigenvectorsMathematicsClassical mechanicsMathematical physicsSchrödinger equationQuantum mechanicsApplied mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rogue periodic waves stand for rogue waves on a periodic background. The nonlinear Schrödinger equation in the focusing case admits two families of periodic wave solutions expressed by the Jacobian elliptic functions dn and cn . Both periodic waves are modulationally unstable with respect to long-wave perturbations. Exact solutions for the rogue periodic waves are constructed by using the explicit expressions for the periodic eigenfunctions of the Zakharov–Shabat spectral problem and the Darboux transformations. These exact solutions generalize the classical rogue wave (the so-called Peregrine’s breather). The magnification factor of the rogue periodic waves is computed as a function of the elliptic modulus. Rogue periodic waves constructed here are compared with the rogue wave patterns obtained numerically in recent publications.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations120
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering SciencesSame topicNonlinear Waves and SolitonsFrench-language works237,207