MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W112735019 · doi:10.13182/nse04-a2424

Optimized Algorithm for Collision Probability Calculations in Cubic Geometry

2004· article· en· W112735019 on OpenAlexfundno aff
R.D.M. Garcia

Bibliographic record

VenueNuclear Science and Engineering · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Maintenance and Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloPolytechnique Montréal
KeywordsHexahedronComputationCollisionCube (algebra)AlgorithmDomain (mathematical analysis)Work (physics)Extension (predicate logic)HomogeneousGeometryComputer scienceMathematicsMathematical analysisPhysicsCombinatoricsFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An optimized algorithm for implementing a recently developed method of computing collision probabilities (CPs) in three dimensions is reported in this work for the case of a homogeneous cube. Use is made of the geometrical regularity of the domain to rewrite, in a very compact way, the approximate formulas for calculating CPs in general three-dimensional geometry that were derived in a previous work by the author. The ensuing gain in computation time is found to be substantial: While the computation time associated with the general formulas increases as K2, where K is the number of elements used in the calculation, that of the specific formulas increases only linearly with K. Accurate numerical results are given for several test cases, and an extension of the algorithm for computing the self-collision probability for a hexahedron is reported at the end of the work.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNuclear Science and EngineeringSame topicInfrastructure Maintenance and MonitoringFrench-language works237,207