MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058560112 · doi:10.1080/10255840701259301

A comparison of non-standard solvers for ODEs describing cellular reactions in the heart

2007· article· en· W2058560112 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

VenueComputer Methods in Biomechanics & Biomedical Engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOdeOrdinary differential equationSimplicityNonlinear systemRange (aeronautics)Applied mathematicsEuler methodComputer scienceEuler's formulaBackward Euler methodSimple (philosophy)Stiff equationExplicit and implicit methodsEuler equationsMathematical optimizationMathematicsDifferential equationMathematical analysisDifferential algebraic equation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mathematical models for the electrical activity in cardiac cells are normally formulated as systems of ordinary differential equations (ODEs). The equations are nonlinear and describe processes occurring on a wide range of time scales. Under normal accuracy requirements, this makes the systems stiff and therefore challenging to solve numerically. As standard implicit solvers are difficult to implement, explicit solvers such as the forward Euler method are commonly used, despite their poor efficiency. Non-standard formulations of the forward Euler method, derived from the analytical solution of linear ODEs, can give significantly improved performance while maintaining simplicity of implementation. In this paper we study the performance of three non-standard methods on two different cell models with comparable complexity but very different stiffness characteristics.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.383
Teacher spread0.338 · 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