MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010818377 · doi:10.1002/nme.1281

A new hybrid method for solving linear–non‐linear systems of equations

2005· article· en· W2010818377 on OpenAlexaff
Stanisław Łukasiewicz, Mehdi Hojjati

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicIterative Methods for Nonlinear Equations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystem of linear equationsLinear systemMathematicsLinear equationApplied mathematicsConvergence (economics)ComputationNonlinear systemSeries (stratigraphy)Rate of convergenceIterative methodMathematical optimizationComputer scienceAlgorithmMathematical analysisKey (lock)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents a new method for solving any combination of linear–non‐linear equations. The method is based on the separation of linear equations in terms of some selected variables from the non‐linear ones. The linear group is solved by means of any method suitable for the linear system. This operation needs no iteration. The non‐linear group, however, is solved by an iteration technique based on a new formula using the Taylor series expansion. The method has been described and demonstrated in several examples of analytical systems with very good results. The new method needs the initial approximations for non‐linear variables only. This requires far less computation than the Newton–Raphson method. The method also has a very good convergence rate. The proposed method is most beneficial for engineering systems that very often involve a large number of linear equations with limited number of non‐linear equations. Copyright © 2005 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.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.385 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in EngineeringSame topicIterative Methods for Nonlinear EquationsFrench-language works237,207