MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970947291 · doi:10.1137/s0036141099351188

Identification of Two-Phase Free Boundary Arising in Plasma Physics

2000· article· en· W1970947291 on OpenAlexaff
June‐Yub Lee, Jin Keun Seo

Bibliographic record

VenueSIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicNonlinear Partial Differential Equations
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOmegaConvexityMathematicsBoundary (topology)PlasmaDomain (mathematical analysis)Mathematical analysisPhase (matter)CombinatoricsNorm (philosophy)GeometryPhysicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We try to estimate the shape and the location of two-phase free boundary which has been studied in [A. Friedman and Y. Liu, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4), 22 (1995), pp. 375--448] to model a stationary magnetohydrodynamics system. A sufficient condition is obtained to check whether a test disk is included in the plasma region D surrounded by a two-phase free boundary. In the test disk technique, only two simply verifiable conditions are used and indispensableness of the conditions is demonstrated using an example. The technique is applicable to select some of test disks placed in the domain $\Omega$, which gives a rough guess on the shape of plasma region. Next we draw some geometrical properties of plasma region D when the domain $\Omega$ possesses a kind of convexity. It is proved that if $\Omega$ itself contains the mirror image of the right portion $\{x \in \Omega : x \cdot \xi > t \}$ of the domain with respect to a line $\{x: x \cdot \xi = t \}$ for all t > t 0 , then so does the plasma region.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.329 · 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

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSIAM Journal on Mathematical AnalysisSame topicNonlinear Partial Differential EquationsFrench-language works237,207