MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024860414 · doi:10.1088/2399-6528/ab92d9

Lambert W function methods in double square well and waveguide problems

2020· article· en· W3024860414 on OpenAlexafffund
Narola Harsh Bharatbhai, P. C. Deshmukh, Robert B. Scott, K. Roberts, S. R. Valluri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Communications · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSports Dynamics and Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsThe King's UniversityWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueIndian Institute of Technology TirupatiShastri Indo-Canadian Institute
KeywordsSquare (algebra)WaveguideTransverse planeTransverse magneticLambert W functionFunction (biology)PhysicsRefractive indexPlane (geometry)OpticsQuantum mechanicsMathematical analysisMathematicsMagnetic fieldGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using methods related to the Lambert W function, we present solutions of two apparently different problems: (1) The one-dimensional double square well potential in quantum mechanics and (2) The transverse electric and magnetic modes for a step-index electromagnetic waveguide. The solution techniques provide insight into the bound energy states for the single and double square well problems and the allowed modes of propagation in a waveguide with varying refractive indices. The solutions can be viewed in either of two related complex plane representations. Comparison of the solution geometries suggests that interesting applications may be possible in nanostructures and devices which are designed to be sensitive to small changes in their environment.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics CommunicationsSame topicSports Dynamics and BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207