MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994402226 · doi:10.1002/cnm.1184

An effective way for dealing with element distortion by nearest‐nodes FEM

2008· article· en· W1994402226 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in Biomedical Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNumerical methods in engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodDistortion (music)Element (criminal law)Quadrature (astronomy)Point (geometry)Set (abstract data type)MathematicsStructural engineeringMathematical analysisTopology (electrical circuits)Applied mathematicsGeometryComputer scienceEngineeringCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, the performance of recently developed nearest‐nodes finite element method (NN‐FEM) ( Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 2007; 44 :797–803; Int. J. Solids Struct. 2008; 45 :5074–5087; Adv. Theor. Appl. Mech. 2008; 1 :131–139) in dealing with element distortion is investigated. Numerical results demonstrated that the accuracy of NN‐FEM is nearly unaffected by element distortion. The reason is that in NN‐FEM, a set of nearest nodes of a quadrature point is always selected for the construction of shape functions. In this way, the quality of shape functions is solely determined by the locations of the selected nearest nodes, and not affected by element shapes. Copyright © 2008 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.351 · 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