Numerical investigation of the reliability of <i>a posteriori</i> error estimation for advection–diffusion equations
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A numerical investigation of the reliability of a posteriori error estimation for advection–diffusion equations is presented. The estimator used is based on the solution of local problems subjected to Neumann boundary conditions. The estimated errors are calculated in a weighted energy norm, a stability norm and an approximate fractional order norm in order to study the effect of the error norm on both the effectivity index of the estimated errors and the mesh adaptivity process. The reported numerical results are in general better than what is available in the literature. The results reveal that the reliability of the estimated errors depends on the relation between the mesh size and the size of local features in the solution. The stability norm is found to have some advantages over the weighted energy norm in terms of producing effectivity indices closer to the optimal unit value, especially for problems with internal sharp layers. Meshes adapted by the element residual method measured in the stability norm conform to the sharp layers and are shown to be less dependent on the wind direction. Copyright © 2007 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it