MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984539292 · doi:10.1137/120861187

Invariant Discretization Schemes for the Shallow-Water Equations

2012· article· en· W1984539292 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Bihlo, Roman O. Popovych

Bibliographic record

VenueSIAM Journal on Scientific Computing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersAustrian Science Fund
KeywordsDiscretizationInvariant (physics)Shallow water equationsMathematicsGridFinite volume methodFinite differenceWaves and shallow waterFinite difference methodMathematical analysisApplied mathematicsGeometryMechanicsPhysicsMathematical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Invariant discretization schemes are derived for the one- and two-dimensional shallow-water equations with periodic boundary conditions. While originally designed for constructing invariant finite difference schemes, we extend the use of difference invariants to allow construction of invariant finite volume methods as well. It is found that the classical invariant schemes converge to the Lagrangian formulation of the shallow-water equations. These schemes require redistribution of the grid points according to the physical fluid velocity; i.e., the mesh cannot remain fixed in the course of the numerical integration. Invariant Eulerian discretization schemes are proposed for the shallow-water equations in computational coordinates. Instead of using the fluid velocity as the grid velocity, an invariant moving mesh generator is invoked in order to determine the location of the grid points at the subsequent time level. The numerical conservation of energy, mass, and momentum is evaluated for both the invariant and noninvariant schemes.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations43
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSIAM Journal on Scientific ComputingSame topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207