MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113528487 · doi:10.1142/s0218301321500038

Refining the general comparison theorem for the Klein–Gordon equation

2021· preprint· en· W3113528487 on OpenAlexafffund
Richard L. Hall, Hassan Harb

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Modern Physics E · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum Mechanics and Non-Hermitian Physics
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsKlein–Gordon equationDimension (graph theory)Coupling (piping)Ground statePhysicsMathematical physicsState (computer science)Monotone polygonEnergy (signal processing)CombinatoricsMathematicsQuantum mechanicsGeometryNonlinear system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By recasting the Klein–Gordon equation as an eigen-equation in the coupling parameter [Formula: see text] the basic Klein–Gordon comparison theorem may be written [Formula: see text], where [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] are the monotone nondecreasing shapes of two central potentials [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] on [Formula: see text]. Meanwhile, [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] are the corresponding coupling parameters that are functions of the energy [Formula: see text]. We weaken the sufficient condition for the ground-state spectral ordering by proving (for example in [Formula: see text] dimension) that if [Formula: see text], the couplings remain ordered [Formula: see text], where [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] are the ground-states corresponding, respectively to the couplings [Formula: see text] for a given [Formula: see text]. This result is extended to spherically symmetric radial potentials in [Formula: see text] dimensions.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.330
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

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Modern Physics ESame topicQuantum Mechanics and Non-Hermitian PhysicsFrench-language works237,207