MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064569834 · doi:10.1109/tap.2013.2291905

On the Equivalence of RWG Method of Moments and the Locally Corrected Nyström Method for Solving the Electric Field Integral Equation

2014· article· en· W2064569834 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Shafieipour, Ian Jeffrey, Jonatan Aronsson, Vladimir Okhmatovski

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicElectromagnetic Scattering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectric-field integral equationDiscretizationMathematicsMultipole expansionMethod of moments (probability theory)Integral equationBasis functionCurrent (fluid)Mathematical analysisNyström methodAccelerationMatrix (chemical analysis)Representation (politics)Applied mathematicsPhysicsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first-order locally corrected Nyström (LCN) method for the electric field integral equation is modified to ensure continuity of the current between triangular elements of the mesh. Rao-Wilton-Glisson (RWG) basis functions are used to create a conversion matrix from the LCN representation of the current to the RWG method-of-moments (MoM) representation of the current in order to enforce continuity of current between adjacent triangular flat patches. Benefits of the method are two fold: first, it provides 4 × reduction in degrees of freedom and removes unacceptable error levels in first-order LCN implementations, second, the method can be viewed as a point-based discretization of the RWG MoM offering improved efficiency in its acceleration with the fast multipole algorithm.

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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Antennas and PropagationSame topicElectromagnetic Scattering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207