MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007018710 · doi:10.36890/iejg.655974

Pseudo Cauchy Riemann and Framed Manifolds with Physical Applications

2020· article· en· W3007018710 on OpenAlexafffund
K. L. Duggal

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Electronic Journal of Geometry · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicGeometric Analysis and Curvature Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersUniversity of Windsor
KeywordsManifold (fluid mechanics)MathematicsBar (unit)Dimension (graph theory)LambdaPure mathematicsRiemannian manifoldFunction (biology)Complex manifoldRiemann hypothesisField (mathematics)Mathematical analysisPhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a pseudo Cauchy Riemann(PCR)-structure defined by a real tensor field $\bar{J}$ of type $(1, 1)$ of a real semi-Riemannian manifold $(\bar{M}, \bar{g})$ such that $\bar{J}^2 = \lambda^2 I$, where $\lambda$ is a function on $\bar{M}$. We prove that, contrary to the even dimensional CR-manifolds, a PCR-manifold is not necessarily of even dimension if $\lambda$ is every where non-zero real function on $\bar{M}$, supported by two odd dimensional examples and one physical model. The metric of PCR-manifold is not severely restricted. Then, we define a pseudo framed(PF)-manifold $(M, g)$ by a real tensor field $f$ such that $f^3 = \lambda^2 f$, where $T(M)$ splits into a direct sum of two subbundles, namely $im(f)$ (with a PCR-structure) and $ ker(f)$, supported by some mathematical and physical examples. Finally, we study a revised version of a contact manifold, called contact PF-manifold, which is a particular case of a PF-manifold where dim$(ker(f))=1$. Contrary to the odd dimensional contact manifolds, there do exist even dimensional contact PF-manifolds. We also propose several open problems.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.270
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Electronic Journal of GeometrySame topicGeometric Analysis and Curvature FlowsFrench-language works237,207