MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082465415 · doi:10.6000/1927-5129.2014.10.03

Reformulation of Adams-Moulton Block Methods as a Sub-Class of Two Step Runge-Kutta Method

2014· article· en· W2082465415 on OpenAlex
Udaya Collins Okechukwu

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicNumerical methods for differential equations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRunge–Kutta methodsBlock (permutation group theory)Applied mathematicsCollocation (remote sensing)MathematicsClass (philosophy)Linear multistep methodStability (learning theory)GridMathematical optimizationComputer scienceMathematical analysisOrdinary differential equationNumerical analysisDifferential equationGeometryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adams-Moulton methods for k = 2 and k = 3 were constructed together with their continuous forms using multi-step collocation methods. The continuous forms were then evaluated at various grid points to produce the block Adams-Moulton methods.
 The block methods were then reformulated as a sub-class of two step Runge-Kutta methods (TSRK). Both the Adams and the reformulated methods were applied to solve initial value problems and the reformulated methods proved superior in terms of stability.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.368 · 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