MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985460801 · doi:10.1115/fedsm2002-31368

A Non-Overlapping Domain Decomposition Method for the Stokes Problem

2002· article· en· W1985460801 on OpenAlexaff
Attila M. Zsáki, Marius Paraschivoiu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational Mathematics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLagrange multiplierFETIDomain decomposition methodsMortar methodsIterative methodFinite element methodConstraint algorithmFictitious domain methodMathematicsMathematical optimizationDecomposition method (queueing theory)Applied mathematicsTearingDomain (mathematical analysis)DecompositionReduction (mathematics)AlgorithmComputer scienceMathematical analysisGeometryPhysicsDiscrete mathematicsStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A domain decomposition method for the Stokes problem using Lagrange multipliers is described. The dual system associated with the Lagrange multipliers is solved based on an iterative procedure using the two-level finite element tearing and interconnecting (FETI) method. Numerical tests are performed by solving the driven cavity problem. An analysis of the number of outer iterations and an evaluation of the cost of the inner iterations are reported. Comparison with the well-known Uzawa algorithm shows a reduction in the floating point operations count of the inner iterations while achieving the same number of outer iterations.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.303 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational MathematicsFrench-language works237,207