MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009619569 · doi:10.1190/geo2013-0388.1

An efficient algorithm for computing nearest medium approximations to an arbitrary anisotropic stiffness tensor

2014· article· en· W2009619569 on OpenAlexaff
Lennert D. den Boer

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElasticity and Material Modeling
Canadian institutionsSchlumberger (Canada)Petro-Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsotropyAlgorithmOrthotropic materialTensor (intrinsic definition)AnisotropyTriclinic crystal systemHomogeneous spaceSymmetry (geometry)StiffnessComputer scienceMathematicsGeometryPhysicsFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The problem of reducing a fully anisotropic (triclinic) stiffness tensor comprised of 21 distinct components to a higher symmetry form having fewer distinct elements is of interest in many geophysical applications, where assuming a particular type of symmetry is often necessary to sufficiently reduce computational complexity to allow practical solutions. In addition, recent advances in the upscaling of realistically large field-scale discrete fracture networks have led to the need for an efficient way to derive a very large number of nearest medium approximations to the triclinic stiffness tensors obtained. Owing to rotational symmetries and nonlinearity, the problem of efficiently finding such approximations is generally nontrivial because optimal orientations are intrinsically nonunique. An algorithm proposed by Dellinger computes nearest orthotropic and transverse isotropic approximations for a given stiffness tensor, using the Federov norm as an objective function to iteratively minimize the fit error. Although this method is appropriate for computing solutions to single problem instances, the implementation is too inefficient for production situations, where a very large number of invocations of the algorithm is required. The enhanced algorithm proposed here is accurate, efficient, and general, allowing nearest medium approximations to be determined for arbitrary symmetry types, including isotropic, cubic, transverse isotropic, orthotropic, and monoclinic.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations17
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicElasticity and Material ModelingFrench-language works237,207