MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1923735558 · doi:10.1002/nme.5132

Inserting a surface into an existing unstructured mesh

2015· article· en· W1923735558 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Zaide, Carl Ollivier‐Gooch

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersIntel Corporation
KeywordsT-verticesDiscretizationBoundary (topology)Surface (topology)Laplacian smoothingMesh generationTriangle meshPolygon meshComputer scienceScale (ratio)GeometryAlgorithmTetrahedronMathematicsFinite element methodMathematical analysisEngineeringPhysicsStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary In this work, a new method for inserting a surface as an internal boundary into an existing unstructured tetrahedral mesh is developed. The surface is discretized by initially placing vertices on its bounding curves, defining a length scale at every location on each boundary curve based on the local underlying mesh, and equidistributing length scale along these curves between vertices. The surface is then sampled based on this boundary discretization, resulting in a surface mesh spaced in a way that is consistent with the initial mesh. The new points are then inserted into the mesh, and local refinement is performed, resulting in a final mesh containing a representation of the surface while preserving mesh quality. The advantage of this algorithm over generating a new mesh from scratch is in allowing for the majority of existing simulation data to be preserved and not have to be interpolated onto the new mesh. This algorithm is demonstrated in two and three dimensions on problems with and without intersections with existing internal boundaries. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in EngineeringSame topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207