MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1940825465 · doi:10.1002/mma.3315

On the well‐posedness of mathematical models for multicomponent biofilms

2015· article· en· W1940825465 on OpenAlexafffund
Stefanie Sonner, Messoud Efendiev, Hermann J. Eberl

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Mathematical Modeling in Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDegeneracy (biology)UniquenessMathematicsDegenerate energy levelsDiffusionNonlinear systemWork (physics)Reaction–diffusion systemSingularityOperator (biology)Constant (computer programming)Applied mathematicsType (biology)Mathematical analysisFick's laws of diffusionThermodynamicsPhysicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bacterial biofilms are microbial depositions on immersed surfaces. Their mathematical description leads to degenerate diffusion‐reaction equations with two non‐Fickian effects: (i) a porous medium equation like degeneracy where the biomass density vanishes and (ii) a super‐diffusion singularity if the biomass density reaches its threshold density. In the case of multispecies interactions, several such equations are coupled, both in the reaction terms and in the nonlinear diffusion operator. In this paper, we generalize previous work on existence and uniqueness of solutions of this type of models and give a general, relatively easy to apply criterion for well‐posedness. The use of the criterion is illustrated in several examples from the biofilm modeling literature. 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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Methods in the Applied SciencesSame topicAdvanced Mathematical Modeling in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207