MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963985007 · doi:10.1063/1.4815834

The 4-body problem in a (1+1)-dimensional self-gravitating system

2013· article· en· W2963985007 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Lauritzen, Peter Gustainis, Robert B. Mann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematical Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum chaos and dynamical systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsQuasiperiodicityLyapunov exponentPhase spaceClassical mechanicsMotion (physics)Measure (data warehouse)Lyapunov functionMathematicsPhysicsEuclidean spaceParticle systemThree-body problemMathematical analysisNonlinear systemQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on the results of a study of the motion of a four particle non-relativistic one-dimensional self-gravitating system. We show that the system can be visualized in terms of a single particle moving within a potential whose equipotential surfaces are shaped like a box of pyramid-shaped sides. As such this is the largest N-body system that can be visualized in this way. We describe how to classify possible states of motion in terms of Braid Group operators, generalizing this to N bodies. We find that the structure of the phase space of each of these systems yields a large variety of interesting dynamics, containing regions of quasiperiodicity and chaos. Lyapunov exponents are calculated for many trajectories to measure stochasticity and previously unseen phenomena in the Lyapunov graphs are observed.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.226
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

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mathematical PhysicsSame topicQuantum chaos and dynamical systemsFrench-language works237,207