MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W104575591

Can we work around numerical methods? an insight

2006· article· en· W104575591 on OpenAlexaff
Sandeep Chandana, René V. Mayorga

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNumerical Methods and Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVan der Pol oscillatorOscillation (cell signaling)ResistorStability (learning theory)PhysicsRelaxation oscillatorWork (physics)Hill differential equationMathematicsDifferential equationComputer scienceNonlinear systemOrdinary differential equationQuantum mechanicsVoltageExact differential equation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Self Sustaining Oscillators are of interest to researchers given the fact that they provide for excellent test beds to study the nuances and intricacies involved in typical oscillatory systems. Numerous such oscillations have been studied using traditional numerical methods in the past, contrary to the propositions of this article. Majority of study of van der Pol equation like oscillatory systems are directed towards deducing a stability criterion. This paper outlines a non-conventional study of the stability standards of the van der Pol Equation. The equation simulates a typical RLC circuit i.e. as a resistor for higher currents, but as a negative resistor for lower currents. Such a behavior is termed Relaxation Oscillation [Nanjundiah 1958]. The van der Pol equation may be defined as an ODE describing oscillations which amplifies smaller oscillations and dampens large oscillations on the other side. It may be obtained by differentiating the Rayleigh Equation and setting y = y’. Detailed analysis of van der Pol equation and its applicability may be found in [Wiggins 1990, Buonomo 1999, Kneubuehl and Kneubhyl 2001]. One of prevalent forms of the van der Pol equation may be given as [Buonomo 1999, Kneubuehl and Kneubhyl 2001]; y” – μ (1 – y) y’ + y = 0 (0)

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.010
Scholarly communication0.0060.012
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.004

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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicNumerical Methods and AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207