MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294315264 · doi:10.1063/5.0087903

Elastic interactions in physics are reflections in geometry

2022· article· en· W4294315264 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

VenueAIP Advances · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMaterial Science and Thermodynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsConic sectionBasis (linear algebra)Intersection (aeronautics)Geometrical opticsClassical mechanicsSimple (philosophy)PhysicsInterpretation (philosophy)Theoretical physicsIdeal (ethics)GeometryPoint (geometry)Reflection (computer programming)Line (geometry)KeplerMathematicsOpticsComputer scienceLawStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A simple standard problem in physics is the study of elastic collisions between elements of an ideal system, which consists of two point masses and a wall. Based on energy and momentum conservation laws, solving the problem consists in finding the intersection of a straight line with a conic. Relationships between the solutions are easily obtained if we consider the right (fundamental) basis to express the solutions. The geometric interpretation follows easily: moving from one point to another on a conic using directions given by this basis. With simple changes in variables, reflections and rotations appear clearly. Similarities with other phenomena such as Heron’s reflection principle in optics and Kepler’s second law of planetary motion are pointed out.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.264 · 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