MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907034207 · doi:10.4153/cmb-2006-018-7

The Geometry of <i>d</i><sup>2</sup><i>y</i><sup>1</sup>/<i>dt</i><sup>2</sup> = <i>f</i> (<i>y</i>, <i>ẏ</i>, <i>t</i>) and <i>d</i><sup>2</sup><i>y</i><sup>2</sup>/<i>dt</i><sup>2</sup> = <i>g</i>(<i>y</i>, <i>ẏ</i>, <i>t</i>), and Euclidean Spaces

2006· article· en· W2907034207 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Richard Atkins

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Mathematical Bulletin · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Differential Geometry Research
Canadian institutionsTrinity Western University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematicsGeodesicEuclidean spaceDifferential geometryDifferential equationMathematical analysisOrdinary differential equationSolving the geodesic equationsOrder (exchange)CombinatoricsGeometryPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper investigates the relationship between a system of differential equations and the underlying geometry associated with it. The geometry of a surface determines shortest paths, or geodesics connecting nearby points, which are defined as the solutions to a pair of second-order differential equations: the Euler–Lagrange equations of the metric. We ask when the converse holds, that is, when solutions to a system of differential equations reveals an underlying geometry. Specifically, when may the solutions to a given pair of second order ordinary differential equations d2y1/dt2 = f (y, ẏ, t) and d2y2/dt2 = g(y, ẏ, t) be reparameterized by t → T(y, t) so as to give locally the geodesics of a Euclidean space? Our approach is based upon Cartan's method of equivalence. In the second part of the paper, the equivalence problem is solved for a generic pair of second order ordinary differential equations of the above form revealing the existence of 24 invariant functions.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Mathematical BulletinSame topicAdvanced Differential Geometry ResearchFrench-language works237,207