MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1590022832 · doi:10.1002/num.21873

Numerical comparison of robustness of some reduction methods in rough grids

2014· article· en· W1590022832 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueNumerical Methods for Partial Differential Equations · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational Mathematics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFinite element methodQuadrilateralMathematicsPolygon meshRobustness (evolution)Mixed finite element methodReduction (mathematics)Applied mathematicsPartial differential equationMathematical analysisGeometryStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we present three nonsymmetric mixed hybrid methods and compare with some recently developed reduction methods which are suitable for the single‐phase Darcy flow problem with full anisotropic and highly heterogeneous permeability on general quadrilateral grids. The methods reviewed are multipoint flux approximation (MPFA), multipoint flux mixed finite element method, mixed‐finite element with broken method, MPFA‐type mimetic finite difference method, and symmetric mixed‐hybrid finite element method. The numerical experiments of these methods on different distorted meshes are compared, as well as their differences in performance of fluxes are discussed. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Numer Methods Partial Differential Eq 30: 1484–1506, 2014

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.370 · 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