MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079484424 · doi:10.1002/nme.682

Coarsening unstructured meshes by edge contraction

2003· article· en· W2079484424 on OpenAlexaff
Carl Ollivier‐Gooch

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolygon meshVertex (graph theory)Edge contractionVolume meshIsotropyAnisotropyGeometryContraction (grammar)Topology (electrical circuits)MathematicsComputer scienceAlgorithmMesh generationCombinatoricsFinite element methodPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A new unstructured mesh coarsening algorithm has been developed for use in conjunction with multilevel methods. The algorithm preserves geometrical and topological features of the domain, and retains a maximal independent set of interior vertices to produce good coarse mesh quality. In anisotropic meshes, vertex selection is designed to retain the structure of the anisotropic mesh while reducing cell aspect ratio. Vertices are removed incrementally by contracting edges to zero length. Each vertex is removed by contracting the edge that maximizes the minimum sine of the dihedral angles of cells affected by the edge contraction. Rarely, a vertex slated for removal from the mesh cannot be removed; the success rate for vertex removal is typically 99.9% or more. For two‐dimensional meshes, both isotropic and anisotropic, the new approach is an unqualified success, removing all rejected vertices and producing output meshes of high quality; mesh quality degrades only when most vertices lie on the boundary. Three‐dimensional isotropic meshes are also coarsened successfully, provided that there is no difficulty distinguishing corners in the geometry from coarsely‐resolved curved surfaces; sophisticated discrete computational geometry techniques appear necessary to make that distinction. Three‐dimensional anisotropic cases are still problematic because of tight constraints on legal mesh connectivity. More work is required to either improve edge contraction choices or to develop an alternative strategy for mesh coarsening for three‐dimensional anisotropic meshes. Copyright © 2003 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)0.003
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.344 · 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
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

Citations35
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in EngineeringSame topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207