Comment on “Solutions of the Dirac equation with an improved expression of the Rosen–Morse potential energy model including Coulomb-like tensor interaction”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Nikiforov–Uvarov polynomial method employed by Aguda (Can. J. Phys. 2013, 91: 689. doi: 10.1139/cjp-2013-0109 ) to solve the Dirac equation with an improved Rosen–Morse potential plus a Coulomb-like tensor potential is shown to be inappropriate because the conditions of its application are not fulfilled. We clarify the problem and construct the correct solutions in the spin and pseudospin symmetric regimes via the standard method of solving differential equations. For the bound states, we obtain the spinor wave functions in terms of the generalized hypergeometric functions 2F1(a, b, c; z) and in each regime we show that the energy levels are determined by the solutions of a transcendental equation that can be solved numerically.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".