MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088168140 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1704.05541

On commutativity and near commutativity of translational and rotational averages: Analytical proofs and numerical examinations

2017· preprint· en· W3088168140 on OpenAlexaff
Len Bos, David R. Dalton, Michael A. Slawiński

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicHigh-pressure geophysics and materials
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnisotropyCommutative propertyElasticity (physics)Mathematical proofCommutatorPerturbation (astronomy)MathematicsTranslational symmetryPhysicsMathematical analysisMathematical physicsPure mathematicsGeometryQuantum mechanicsAlgebra over a field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We show that, in general, the translational average over a spatial variable---discussed by Backus \cite{backus}, and referred to as the equivalent-medium average---and the rotational average over a symmetry group at a point---discussed by Gazis et al. \cite{gazis}, and referred to as the effective-medium average---do not commute. However, they do commute in special cases of particular symmetry classes, which correspond to special relations among the elasticity parameters. We also show that this noncommutativity is a function of the strength of anisotropy. Surprisingly, a perturbation of the elasticity parameters about a point of weak anisotropy results in the commutator of the two types of averaging being of the order of the {\it square\/} of this perturbation. Thus, these averages nearly commute in the case of weak anisotropy, which is of interest in such disciplines as quantitative seismology, where the weak-anisotropy assumption results in empirically adequate models.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.147 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicHigh-pressure geophysics and materialsFrench-language works237,207