MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098907952

Two-Component Formulation of the Wheeler-DeWitt Equation,” Uni. of Alberta preprint no

2013· article· en· W7098907952 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintSuperposition principleHarmonic oscillatorEigenvalues and eigenvectorsBoundary value problemSimple (philosophy)Product (mathematics)Integral equation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Wheeler-DeWitt equation for the minimally coupled FRW-massive-scalar-field minisuperspace is written as a two-component Schrödinger equation with an explicitly ‘time’-dependent Hamiltonian. This reduces the solution of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation to the eigenvalue problem for a non-relativistic one-dimensional harmonic oscillator and a series of trivial algebraic equations whose inductive solution may be easily found. In particular, it is shown that there is a simple double grading of the solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation which determines two classes of definite-parity solutions. A detailed analysis of these solutions is performed. Since every solution may be written as the superposition (sum) of the definite-parity solutions, the analysis of the latter yields the structure of the general solutions. Furthermore, it is shown that real solutions such as that of Hartle and Hawking have definite parity. The results of this article are independent of the choice of the inner product on the space of solutions and boundary conditions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.160 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207