MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008125169 · doi:10.1142/s0218127420502363

Visualization of Four Limit Cycles in Near-Integrable Quadratic Polynomial Systems

2020· article· en· W3008125169 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsQuadratic equationLimit (mathematics)VisualizationLimit cyclePolynomialQuadratic function

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been known for almost 40 years that general planar quadratic polynomial systems can have four limit cycles. Recently, four limit cycles were also found in near-integrable quadratic polynomial systems. To help more people to understand limit cycles theory, the visualization of such four numerically simulated limit cycles in quadratic systems has attracted researchers’ attention. However, for near-integral systems, such visualization becomes much more difficult due to limitation on choosing parameter values. In this paper, we start from the simulation of the well-known quadratic systems constructed around the end of 1979, then reconsider the simulation of a recently published quadratic system which exhibits four big size limit cycles, and finally provide a concrete near-integral quadratic polynomial system to show four normal size limit cycles.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.274 · 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