MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039747090 · doi:10.1007/pl00005475

A minimal stabilisation procedure for mixed finite element methods

2001· article· en· W2039747090 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

VenueNumerische Mathematik · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational Mathematics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodMathematicsDiscretizationNumerical analysisStability (learning theory)Mathematical optimizationSection (typography)Applied mathematicsMathematical analysisComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stabilisation methods are often used to circumvent the difficulties associated with the stability of mixed finite element methods. Stabilisation however also means an excessive amount of dissipation or the loss of nice conservation properties. It would thus be desirable to reduce these disadvantages to a minimum. We present a general framework, not restricted to mixed methods, that permits to introduce a minimal stabilising term and hence a minimal perturbation with respect to the original problem. To do so, we rely on the fact that some part of the problem is stable and should not be modified. Sections 2 and 3 present the method in an abstract framework. Section 4 and 5 present two classes of stabilisations for the inf-sup condition in mixed problems. We present many examples, most arising from the discretisation of flow problems. Section 6 presents examples in which the stabilising terms is introduced to cure coercivity problems.

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 score0.524
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.312 · 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