MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059645356 · doi:10.1115/pvp2002-1285

Subcycled Hourglass Control for Explicit Time Integration of Dynamic Relaxation Equations

2002· article· en· W2059645356 on OpenAlexaff
Don R. Metzger, Shengpu Gao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicNumerical methods for differential equations
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHourglassDiscretizationSpurious relationshipComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)Finite element methodInterval (graph theory)MathematicsMathematical analysisPhysicsControl (management)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Explicit methods, such as the central difference operator, rely on the economical evaluation of internal forces at each time step of a transient dynamic problem. One-point quadrature applied to the spatial discretization provides the greatest efficiency, but hourglass control is required to eliminate spurious zero energy modes. Computationally practical hourglass control methods involve considerable approximation in evaluating the internal force. Thus, a small additional approximation due to an alternative temporal integration of the hourglass force may not seriously affect the accuracy of the analysis. In particular, the possibility of evaluating the hourglass terms on a larger time interval than the usual stable time step could provide significant efficiencies. The proposed approach of subcycling the hourglass terms is examined in detail with respect to stability and accuracy. Implementation into an explicit finite element program is demonstrated on a three-dimensional example that involves several hourglass modes, and the new method proves to be beneficial for noninertial problems where artificial damping is used.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNumerical methods for differential equationsFrench-language works237,207